Or, Antichristian Blasphemies, Anti-scripturall Divelismes, Anti-morall Uncleanness, Evidenced in the Light of Truth, and Punished by the hand of Justice.

BEING, A sincere and impartiall Relation of the Proceedings of the Com­missioners of the County of Berks, Authorized by the Ordinance for Ejection, against John Pordage, late Minister of Bradfield, in the same County.

Published for the vindication of Justice, and satisfaction of the Consci­entious, in the name, and by the order of the said Commissioners and Assistants.

With some Notes, and Animadversions upon a Book of the said John Pordage, intituled, Innocency appearing, &c.

By CHRISTOPHER FOWLER, Minister of the Gospel at S. Maries in Reding.

Mos iste semper viguit in Ecclesia, ut quo quisque foret religiosior, eo promptiùs novis adinventionibus contrairet. Vinc. Lyrin. adv. Haer. cap. 9.

2 Pet. 2.1, 2. False teachers shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and many shall follow their pernicious waies.

1 Cor. 16.22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

1 Gal. 8. Though an angel from heaven preach otherwise, then that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

1 John 2.23. Whosoever denyeth the son, the same hath not the father.

Peccatum nocet personae, sed Haeresis communitati, Luth. tom. 1. p. 260.

Hoc est artificiū unicū Satanae & fanaticorū, quod nolunt videri male docere, se jactant sincerissimos, fidelissimos, cum sunt omniū mendacissimi. Id. tom. 4. p. 339.

LONDON: Printed for Francis Eglesfi [...]ld, and are to be sold at the Signe of the Marigold in S. Pauls Church-yard. 1655.

To his Highness OLIVER Lord PROTECTOR of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Dominions thereunto belonging.

May it please your Highness.

WE humbly crave leave to acknow­ledge, that we look upon it as an eminent mercy, that under your Highness Government, a gracious, and a wise Providence hath put an opportunity into the hands of men desiring to fear God, to effect, what is of highest concernment, for the good of soules: that, they may neither be starved by the Ministers insufficiency, nor poisoned by blasphemy, nor blinded by ignorance, nor hardned by scandall,

Whilest men slept, (we are loath to say the masters of the house,) the envious man hath sown Tares, tares full of deadly poi­son, and that poison diffused into the very vitalls of faith, and godlinesse, and [Page] that so subtilly conveyed, that Sathan fights againstPanatici pug­nant contra Christum, sub titulo Christi: Luther. Christ, under the notion of Christ.

Among the many sad Instances in this nation, this ensuing Relation presents some of those doctrines to your Highness view, Doctrines so directly destructive to the very fundamentalls of Religion, that we solemnly professe, (were it a mat­ter eligible) we had rather ten thousand times, that we, and our dearest relations should die stark mad in chains at Bedlam, then to live, and die in such execrable opi­nions against our Lord Jesus.

In all humility we beg the boldnesse to say, that your conscientious, and solemn pursuance of Reformation, that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus may be glorified, will be the life, and length of your dayes in this time of trouble, as a bond of love upon the hearts of the Godly, in this hour of Apostasie, whilest you live, and leave your memory precious to succeeding Generations.

Your Highness faithfully devoted, in the service of the Gospel, in the name of your Commissioners, and their Assistants; and among them the meanest, CHRISTO. FOWLER.


Courteous Reader,

THou art here presented with a faithfull relation of the Proceedings of the Commissioners of Berks, in the business of Dr. Pordage, late Mi­nister of Bradfield in the said County: we desire that thou maist read as we do write, with a sad heart that such prodigious, and damnable heresies should be belched forth in such a land of light, both publickly and privately against the person and merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, as this Dr. hath done.

We are well assured, that neither the former Parlia­ments, nor the present Governours did intend, or mean thus to tolerate, though they were tender to consciences truly tender; their care was, and is, for the ejection of Scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient Ministers, and in their room, placing Godly, Learned, Orthodox Divines, the noblest work that can be undertaken, (if we may have liberty to ex­press our thoughts) in any Common wealth, that calls it self Christian. This man formerly placed in, and now ejected, was none of these; first, not Godly, because, he denies the Godhead of Jesus Christ, vilifies his precious blood, which theActs 20.28. Scripture calls the blood of God. A Do­ctrine that wants a name black enough to be called by, in which any man living, and dying can never be saved, and [Page] certainly there can be no godliness in that religion, in which there is no salvation.

Secondly, Not learned, (we speak not of that great help and ornament of humane learning, whereof this man hath no great cause to boast, (although by a Charientismus he is called Doctor) but, because he is ignorant of the chief heads of Religion, which even some children of ten years old from their catechisme can deliver in more intelligible termes, then he hath done.

Thirdly, Not Orthodox, because, his doctrines are Diametrically opposite to all those that now are, or those that have been received as such, by the people of God in all for­mer ages, and his exposition, and application of the Scri­pture is a meer wretched and sensless corruption of the sa­cred text.

Fourthly, No Divine, because, his heresies are, (if by the example of theAppietatem, aut Lentulita­tem, Cic. epi­stol. lib. 3. epist. 7. Oratour in Latine, we may have leave to coyn a word in English) rather Divellity, then Divinity.

The Matter of his Charge (for which we referre thee to this relation) may be reduced to four heads.

First, Blasphemy, and of that, the most pernicious, directly destroying the very foundation.

Secondly, Pretended Visions, of Angels, to confirme that blasphemy.

Thirdly, The Doctrine and Scandall of uncleanness, theGod most just­ly punishing impiety with impurity. Rom. 1.21, to 24. Issue of that blasphemy.

Fourthly, Ignorance and insufficiency, the ground there­of.

For the first, Blasphemy, he hath often denied the God­head of our Lord Jesus, which may be called antecedent Blasphemy, and called his righteousness a sapless righte­ousness, and his precious blood a va [...]n thing, which are most direfull Blasphemies, and consequences of the former.

The first of these was the damned heresie ofEuseb. Eccles. histo. lib. 5. cap. ult. Theodotus, the tanner,Ibid. Paulus Samosatenus, Epiphan. Haeres. 71. Aug. haeres. 44, 45. Photinus, Ibid. haeres. 49. Arrius, whom Hierome in apol. adv. Ruffin. calls Damonium Meridia­num, Mahomet. Alchor. c. 5. p. 72. (if this may be called Heresie.) Mahomet, Mr. Rutherfords Survey, part. 1. cap. 9. Henry Nicholas founder of the Fami­lists.

The other execrable Blas [...]hemy concerning Christs righteousness, is either a piece of oldAlphons. de castro. lib. 7. col. 7. 510. Pelagianisme, which puts the merits of Eternall life upon the performance of hu­mane nature, or rather, newRutherfords S rvey of the Spirit, Antic. c. 9. p. 58, 59. famil sme, which most absurdly, and blasphemously saith, that Christ is not one man, the Son of Mary, but all men believing and loving, and that Christ is not God, and man, but the state of perfe­ction in believers, what Christian heart can chuse but be affected with some sparkes of holy zeal against such cursed doctrines, spit in the facce of Jesus Christ, by an handfull of sinfull dirt, fit to be cast into the street, Psal. 18.42. and which impious doctrines do necessarily conclude our religion to be but a fable, our faith a fancy, our hope a dream, and us of all creatures the most miserable.

To the second, as to Visions of angels, we believe the Christian Reader will easily perswade himselfe, that the Blessed Angels would rather lie down in the flames of hell, then come to confirme such wicked, antichristian do­ctrines, but this is an old fetch of the Prince of dark­ness.

The Angelici were thought by some to have been so called for their pretended communion with angels, which agreeth well with that we find inEpipha. cont. haeres. lib. 2. tom. 1. p. 60. Epiphanius v [...]z. that they held themselves to be of the order of angels, as being persons in their own conceits angelicall, if so, tis likely they looked the angels should beThis Doctor doth confesse converse with them. familiar with them, But the constant phrase of the Scripture still mentioning familiar spirits in an evil sence, never in a good, teacheth us to take them not for glorified Angels in heaven, but for damned fiends in hell.

The pretense of converse with Angels, we find most fre­quent amongst Mahumetans, Papists, and Familists, take a single instance of each of them;

First, Mahumetans, and here, most notoriously famous is the grand imposture of that wickedForbes in­struct. hist. theol. p. 176. Mahomet, pretending great familiarity with the Angel Gabriel, and that the Al­coran was let fall from heaven into his bosome, when he was asleep; A great helper of this wretch, was Sergius a Ne­storian, who denied (as our Dr.) the Godhead of Christ,

2. Of the Papists we have a notable history of their S. Francisca, who was said to have enjoyed the sight of an AngelHere is the Drs. match. continually, he was of an incredible beauty, his [Page] countenance more white, then snow, more ruddy, then the rose, cross'd on his breast, his locks long, and curled, more clear then polished gold, shining with such brightnesse, that she could read her mattens at midnight.

3. As for the Familists, we cannot have a fitter example then of their PatriarckMr. Ruther­ford [...] Survey Antic. cap. 9. p. 55. Henry Nicholas, who gave out that he had Visions of, and conferences with Angels from heaven, from whom he learned to expound Scriptures by Allegories, but such Angels are quickly d [...]scovered to be Divels indeed, when their Revelations are brought to be tried by the Word of God, as they ought, Isai. 8.20.

Mary Wiltshire reported to Dr. Goad, and Dr. Featly, at Lambeth, that there appeared to her one in the shape of a woman, w [...]th very shining l [...]ght, having the moon under her feet, and the sun over her head, with bright beams a­bout it, who gave her being sick in her bed, three Benedicti­ons, and Fisher the Jesuit told her, without doubt it was the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it was revealed to him, she must be a Nun of the Order of S. Clare.

Luther, tom. 2 in Gen. Fol. 193. Luther being acquainted with this Cheat of Sathan, and fearing to be deluded by some Diabolicall imposture under the appearance of Angels, daily prayed, that God woul [...] preserve him from such visions, contenting himself with reading, and meditation of the Scriptures, and hearing Ser­mons, and prayer.

The fancy ofEpiphan. con. Haeres. lib. 2. tom. 1. haeres. [...]9. Quintilla, or Priscilla, who said, that Christ came to her when she was asleep, and reuealed to her that Pepuza the Village where she lived was an holy place, the city Jerusalem which descended out of heaven, is paralel to the vision of Susan Day a [...] Bradfield, and the Drs. con­ceit that his house should be as Noahs Ark, for safety to those that came to dwell under his roof.

We never read nor heard but these pretenders to Visions did ever scorn, and trample on the Word and Ordinances of Jesus Christ, the Ordinance of Water Baptisme is totally denied by the Dr. and the other Sacrament is in effect de­nied, because the things sign [...]fied are denied, soe didRuther. ubi ante, p. 60. Hen­ry Nicholas the Oracle of his Sect hold, that Scriptures, preaching, Sacraments, were but fleshly, elementish, ceremo­niall, and indifferent things.

The third head of the charge against the Dr. is for Un­cleannesse in Doctrine, and that in two points; the one, de­nying [Page] with theThis Marcion had a bastard by a sister, for which fact he was ejected, and then deni­ed Marriage to Christians. Ob stupratam virginem reje­ctus, nuptias interdixit Christianis. Erasmus in his epist. before I­renaeus. Marcionites the remedy against it, prescri­bed by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.2. the other allowing liberty for it, by penalty of women.

So did Mahomet, and the Papists now do, by tolerating Stewes, allowing many female bedfellowes, for one wife, asSleidan. Comment. lib. 4. p. 79. Cardinal Campeius did in Germany; Pope Hildebrands doctrine was very good news to whoremongers, who for one wife might have the use of 600 women,Idem, p. 200. John of Leyden the Mechanical King of the Fanaticks in Germany, pre­tended, that he received his impure doctrine by Revelation, and when some made doubt of such Libertinisme, he laid down his cloke upon the new Testament, and sware by them both, that he had that doctrine delivered to him from God himself.

Obj. The Dr. is a Professor, and is taken notice of for holinesse, amongst men of his perswasion at least, nay and others, very many.

Ans. So was Caspar Rutherfords Survey of An­tic. c. 5. p. 15. Swincfield reputed a man grave, ci­vil and fervent in prayer, yet he became a blaspemous he­retique against the nature of Cbrist, and against the Scrip­tures, saying that Christ was not only once born, but often, and that we ought to content our selves with the teaching of the spirit, for, the vocall word is to be rejected as a kil­ling letter.

Our English false ProphetCambden Annal. l. 4. p. 40. Hacket was a Professor of sanctity, a hearer of sermons, a reader of Scriptures, pray­ [...]ng with admirable fervency, yet fell from duty to revela­tion, and from revelation to blasphemy, such blasphemy against God, that even the Divells scarce ever durst utter.

The Dr. hath brought in his Protestation.

Ans. Be pleased to read the animadversion upon it, for present, consider the Elcesaits, Priscillianists, and Fami­lists, they took liberty to dissemble in their own defence, though they did so upon different grounds.

TheAlphons. de Castro. adver. haeres. l. [...]0. Elcesaits took a liberty to say any thing, because they held that God was more pleased with truth in the heart, then displeased with falsity in the mouth.

TheAug. de haer. haer. 7. Priscillianists they allowed in themselves the deny­ing of the truth, because they held it better to conceal the truth with lying, and perjury, then to confesse it with shame, and infamy.

TheCambden Annal. l. 2. p. 18, 219. Familists held it was lawfull for them to deny upon their oathes before Magistrates what they list, or before any other which were not of their own Family, which of these the Dr. will choose for his brethren we cannot resolve, it is l [...]ke, he will acknowledge none of them for his master, nor is it needfull, that one Heretick should learn of another, for the same Divel may teach them all in severall ages, the same Errors, Heresies, and Blasphemies, asCal. instruc. adv. Libert. c. 1. p. 435. opusc. Calvin ob­serves.

The fourth and last head, is ignorance and insufficiency, we shall leave it to the conscience of every impartial Chri­stian, whether his shewing himself grosselyThat is the most favou­rable word, we wish there be nothing of pride, con­tempt, and scorn. ignorant of the Lord Jesus in his Person, and Offices, even to a denial of them, and that with reproach, and this in publique, his sencelesse allegorizing of the Scriptures, be not a sufficient ground for being sentenced, ignorant, and insufficient.

As for our awn particular, (if we know our own hearts) we have not been acted in this businesse through spleen, pas­sion, or personal respects, but in sincerity desiring, and (according to our meannesse) endeavouring the glory of Jesus Christ, and the good of precious soules, nor do we find our selves moved, (and we desire we may not) with those unworthyRobbers, li­ons, Fierie fur­naces, partiall, cruell, envious, unjust, killing the Prophets, crucifiers, &c. These and such like are the sweet flowers of his meeke Rhetorick in his book, to this pur­pose speak the Familists against the Puritans in their supplication to King James, printed An. 606. aspersions, and reflections cast upon any of us by himself, his Lawyer, or his partie.

As for the Dr. himself, we heartily wish, that God may vouchsafe him repentance unto life, and that God would be pleased to open the eyes, and turn the hearts of those poor, seduced people who are Belepered with these impious, and impure doctrines, and that God would make, and keep the Commissioners of this County, and all the counties of this Nation Conscientious in, and Couragious for the Truth.

C. F.

The Reader is requested to observe that, that Note p. 18. be­ginning Lastly whereas the Dr. complains, &c. is misplaced, and page 84. at the beginning of the page, let him take in this, The Drs. Answer.

In the Preface page 5. line 3. read plurality for penalty. p. 8. marg. r. read for was. p. 17. l. 18. r. so for too. p. 18. l. 14. r. soa­ringnesse for oaringnesse. page 20. l. 1. for there read theirs. p. 24. mar. The Quae. dele The. ibid. at the end of the margin, for de­jected by these renowned r. detected by the summoned. p 26. l. 16. r. Acerrimi for Acerrini. p. 27. l. 1. for so r. for. p. 40. l. 16. read worke for world. p. 78. l. 12. read bear for blaze. p. 79. l 5. r. Isle­worth for Haworth. p. 84. l. last, r. our for one. p 98. l. 7. r. salt for soft. p. 99. l. 24. r. procedure for procedence. p. 101. l. last, read crown for crow. p. 111. margin. r. ω for ο penult. p. 119. mar. r. quam for quod. p. 127. l. 25. r. vocans for vacans p. 159. l. 34. r. at for all. p. 168. l. 2. r. enemies for exercises, ibid. l. 33. r. Antichri­stian for Antichristianisme. p. 169. l. 6. r. ever for either. ibid. l. 9. Harnesse for hardnesse.

There are other Literal faults, and faults in pointing which thou art desired to mend, or passe by.

A Just narration of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Berks, upon Articles of Blasphemy, pretended visi­ons, uncleannesse &c. exhibited and proved against John Pordage, late minister of Bradfield in the said county.

MOnday the eighteenth of September 1654, being the first day of the Commissioners meeting, a charge of articles was then ex­hibited to them, against Doctor John Por­dage Rector of Bradfield in this county, who was thereupon, by warrant dated the same day under the hands and seals of five of the said Com­missioners, required to appear, and give answer to the said articles on thursday the fifth of October following, at the Bear in Speenhamland by Newbery, On which day the said Doctor accordingly appeared, but produced no answer, onely pleaded he had been formerly discharged from the matters charged against him in the said articles by the Par­liament, and the former Committee of this county: which no way appearing to the Committee, it was then resolved by them, that by vertue of the Ordinance they had power to question the said Doctor, upon the said articles, and did then order him a copy of the said articles, and further time [Page 2] to give in his answer thereunto, till thursday the nineteenth of the said October.

At which time the said Doctor again appearing, after many demurres by him made to the authority of the Com­missioners, in a comtemptuous way and manner, he did ex­hibite his answer in writing to the said articles. But additi­onall articles being then exhibited against him, the Com­missioners ordered him a copy thereof, and gave him a fort­nights time to bring in his answer to the said additionall ar­ticles, and then to produce his witnesses for proof of his defence, and justification to both the said charges, and had summons granted for his said witnesses accordingly.

On thursday the second of November, the said Doctor made a further appearance, and gave in his answer to the said additionall articles: and further additionall articles being then exhibited against the said Doctor, the Commis­sioners ordered him a copy thereof, and gave him furrher time to give in his answer thereunto, till the two and twen­tieth of the said November, at the Bear in Reading, at which time they appointed to proceed upon the whole, and ordered witnesses to be then and there produced on both sides, as well for proof of the said severall charges, as of the Doctors answer and defence thereunto, and summons were issued out for that purpose.

On the said two and twentieth of November, the Com­missioners meeting at the said place, and receiving the Do­ctors answer to the third paper of articles, proceeded to examination for proof of the whole; and having spent the said day in examination of severall witnesses for proof of the articles, they appointed to sit the morrow after upon the same businesse and then adjourned.

The next day being the twentie third of the said Novem­ber, they made further proceedings in the examination for proof of the articles, and after all the witnesses for that pur­pose that were then present, were examined in open Court, and in the Doctors own presence, and by himself crosse ex­amined; the Commissioners required the Doctor to produce his witnesses for his defence and justification, (if he had a­ny) [Page 3] which he refused, demanding to have first copies of the depositions against him, before he would produce his wit­nesses, which the Commissioners judging to be very unrea­sonable and irregular, thought not fit to grant unto him, and though they might then justly have proceeded to give their judgement, without giving him further time, he ma­king default, yet notwithstanding, such was their tendernesse in the carriage of this businesse, that they gave him further time to produce his said witnesses, (viz.) till the thirtieth of the said November, at the Bear in Speenhamland; where the Doctor appeared not in person, but by his wife and others of his family excused his failer, in regard of sicknesse, and infirmity of body, under which (as they pretended) he then laboured, and could not appear without further dan­ger of his health, which excuse (although no positive proof thereof was then made) was admitted by the Commission­ers, and further time yet given him, till the seventh of De­cember then following at the Bear in Reading. At which time the said Commissioners proceeded to examine severall other witnesses then present, in behalf of the Prosecutours, which having done, they examined severall witnesses on the Doctors part and behalf, and the Doctor pretending to be ill, they adjourned for that time till the morrow morning following. But for that the Doctor had the same day produced severall witnesses in his behalf, who being sworn, neither the questions propounded unto them by the Do­ctor, nor the evidence by them given did lead to justifie the Doctor from the matters charged, and proved against him, but merely dilatory, as was judged by the Commissioners. They did therefore require, that according to former order, he should the next day give in the names of his witnesses, together with his interrogatories in writing, to which he would have them examined, which the Commissioners might first consider of but he peremptorily refused so to do, onely instead thereof, he offered severall questions, which being taken by the Clark, were afterwards debated by the Com­missioners, and by them adjudged to be to as little purpose (though they should be admitted to be true) as the for­mer [Page 4] evidence already taken in his behalf, but only to delay, yet notwithstanding they proceeded to examine two of the Doctors witnesses to some of those questions, which they judged most tending to his justification, which having done, and heard patiently what either the Doctor or his counsell could say at large, they caused the whole proceedings to be read over publickly, and then commanded the company to withdraw, that they might resolve on their judgement, which was unanimously agreed on, for the ejectment of the Dr, out of the parsonage of Bradfield, for scandall, igno­rance, and insufficiency proved against him,

The most materiall things charged against him, with the depositions thereupon taken, on both sides, upon which the aforesaid sentence of ejestion was grounded, are as fol­loweth,

1 Article.

In the first paper of articles exhibited against the Dr.

That the fiery deity of Christ mingleth, and mixeth it self with our flesh.


‘I was then speaking of the mysticall union between Christ and his Church, and in the illustration of this union, I applyed that expression out of the 8 of the Canticles, He mingled his wine and his milk together: so in this union Christs divine nature mingleth it self with our humanity, his spirit without flesh. This expression Master Tickle was pleased to charge with blasphemy, asking me what I meant by flesh, I answered (in conference) by flesh I un­derstood not the sinfull and fleshly part of the soul, that lusteth against the spirit, for with this there can be no uni­on. Secondly, nor the outward elementary flesh of the bo­dy, but by flesh, I understand our pure humanity or the regenerated part of the soul, the converted, part of the spi­rit; and thus the spirit of Christ, and the regenerated part were really in union one with the other, according to the Apostles phrase. We are made partakers of the divine na­ture.

At this answer he had nothing to reply.

The proof of this article.

Master John Tickle Minister of Abingdon, and one of the Assistants to the Commissioners sworn, and examined.

This Deponent saith that Doctor Pordage did deliver in the Pulpit, that the fiery Deity of Christ mingleth and mixeth it self with ourThe Dr said the deity of Christ mingles it self with our flesh, that is execrable blas­phemy. Then, with our pure humanity, that's canting nonsence: then, with the soul of Christ, most unsound and ignorant. Flesh, and being charged with blas­phemy by this Deponent; he repeated his sence thus, he did not mean with our corruption, but with our flesh, holding his hand over the Pulpit.

And this Deponent being crosse examined to severall Interrogatories exhibited by the Doctor farther saith, that after the Doctor held up his hand, as he hath formerly de­posed, the Doctor said, that he did not mean with our flesh, but with the soul of Christ, and that this article was delivered without any the least limitation, as to the sense of it, and that the same was fully and roundly delivered in the Doctors sermon at Ildesly, whereupon the Deponent charged him with blasphemy, and afterwards they fell into a dispute.

Article 2.

That the imputative righteousnesse of Christ is a sapless righteousnesse.

The Doctors answer to this article is.

‘I thus deliver the truth: as I was paraphrasing on that portion of scripture mentioned in the 9 of Daniel and the 24, of everlasting righteousnesse,Ʋntruth, noto­rioussy false, read the proof and the he [...]ds of his sermon in the animad­version. I did say words to this effect, That the imputative righteousnesse of another was a saplesse and empty righteousnesse to all those th [...]t had no right, or interest in it. &c. I shall desire a little to explain my self on this proposition, that the imputative righteousnesse of Christ will prove a saplesse righteous­nesse, for he that hath not the spirit of Christ dwelling in his heart by faith notwithstanding all hisThat appli­cation can there be of Christ and his merits without the spirit. application of Christ and his merits, yet to him it is but a saplesse righ­teousnesse: so saith the scripture, he that hath not the spi­rit [Page 6] of Christ is none of his, though he should apply the imputative righteousnesse of Christ to himself, But here I do not deny the imputative righteousnesse of Christ, nor his active and passive obedience to be the materiall cause of justification, Yea, I own and acknowledge Christs righteousnesse to be the souls righteousnesse in point of justification when it is applyed upon a true ground according to the trueSo Mr Erbe­ry would say, that Christ was God accor­ding to the Scriptures, in his sense. sense of the spirit in the Scriptures.’

The proof of this article

The aforesaid Master John Tickle examined to this ar­ticle.

This Deponent saith that the Doctor delivered that the imputative righteousnesse of Christ was a saplesse righ­teousnesse.

And being crosse examined to this article, and asked by the Doctor whether these words (viz) (the fiery deity of Christ in the centre of our souls, burning &c.) were not ad­ded as some limitation to this second article.

This Deponent saith, he doth not remember any such addition as is mentioned in the interrogatory, unlesse it were inThus, which righteousness Dan. 9.24. Is not the saplesse righ­teousnesse of Christ, But the fiery, &c. opposition to the righteousnesse of Christ which he called saplesse, and he farther saith, the Doctor did not deliver any such limitation as he makes in his answer thereunto, and that there was no such word asLet the Christian Rea­der observe this passage. except spoken nor any thing like unto it.

Master Roger Stephens of Reading Gentleman sworn and examined.

To the second article this Deponent saith, that Doctor Pordage delivered in a sermon at Ildesly, that the righte­ousnesse of Christ was a saplesse righteousnesse, a mere em­pty thing,Observe what was the drift of the Drs sermon and he doth not remember any thing to the con­trary but that the same was an intire sentence, and only so, and that to his apprehension the drift of his sermon then [Page 7] was to take off the strength and efficacy of Christs righte­ousnesse.

And this Deponent farther saith, that in the said sermon the Doctor did deliver these words (viz) you are not to look to this (meaning as the Deponent apprehended Christs righteousnesse) but to the fiery deity, burning in the cen­ter of the soul, consuming and destroying sin there, which last mentioned sentence did not immediately follow the words which he used when he said, the righteousnesse of Christ was saplesse, but the same was farther off in the midst of his sermon.On the defen­dants part.

In behalf of the Doctour to this article,

Mary Pocock sworn and examined.

This Deponent (being asked whether she heard the Dr deliver the second article (viz.) That the righteousnesse of Christ, was saplesse, and whether it was delivered with a limitation or not) saith it was with this limitation (viz.) Except the firery deity of Christ be in our souls, burning up our lusts and corruptions.

And this Deponent (being asked whether these last words were spoken together with the other words to make up one sentence) saith yes, thus that the righteousnesse of Christ was saplesse, except the fiery deity of Christ be in the center of our souls burning up our lusts and corruptions.

Richard Higgs of Sulhamsted Turner sworn and ex­amined.

This Deponent saith, that he hath been a hearer of Do­ctor Pordage, at certain times for five or six years last past, and that during that time, for ought the Deponent knows, the scope of the Doctors Ministry hath not been against the right or due application of Christs righteousnesse, but against the mis-application thereof, for ought he knows: But this Deponent being asked whether he hath been a constant hearer of the Dr, he saith he hears him very often, but he is at his own parish in the mornings, and sometimes he is ab­sent [Page 8] at other times, but he hath often heard the Dr.

And this Deponent being further asked, what he hath u­sually heard the Dr preach concerning the imputative righ­teousnesse of Christ, he saith he cannot charge his memory, but hath a note to which he would reflect for recollecting of his memory, and thereupon produced a note drawn in the form of an examination, in which, what he should say was prescribed unto him, which note was given him from the Dr as he confesseth: and being asked what himself, or what the Dr meant by Christs righteousnesse, he saith he cannot depose:This witnesse the Dr called, godly, sober, learned was the animadver­sion. But here the Dr interposing saith, that Christs righteousnesse is his active and passive obedience. Upon which the Deponent was further asked, what was Christs active obedience, he saith it was his suffering on the crosse.

Daniel Roberts of Reading feltmaker, sworn and examined.

This Deponent saith he doth not remember he ever heard the Dr preach above once, which was about three years since at Bradfield on theThe men of his perswasion keep the Lords day on this ac­count, because it is the cu­stome of the na­tion. Sabboth day, as the Deponent was going to Wayhill Fair, and that then the Drs text was upon that Scripture (The Kingdome of Heaven is like unto a treasure hid in the fields,) which treasure the Dr did soundly apply to the righteousnesse of Christ, and that he did very much extoll the righteousnesse of Christ, but he doth not remember any expression of imputative righteous­nesse, and that to his best remembrance, the Dr did explain the righteousnesse of Christ to be his obedience to his Fa­thers will, as far as the Deponent could judge, and the De­ponent being asked whether the Drs drift in his sermon were not to advance an inherent righteousnesse, he saith he cannot remember.

Animad. first.

Animad. 1. and that in these three particulars, First, as to the Articles, secondly, as to the Drs witnesses, thirdly, as to his plea.

First particular.

As to the articles, we entreat the reader to observe, that these two articles deposed, and the other two (of which anon) were not collateral passages, but, the main heads of Dr Pordage's sermon, his text was Malachy 3.1. his Doctrine, That, God doth usually prepare his way, in the hearts of his people, before he comes in with his glory to them. He proceeds thus.

There are severall preparations laid down by Divines, as the conviction of sin, the terrours of the law, the death of Christ, the free grace of God, which are (said he) but fleshly, and flashy discoveries.

I shall give you (said the Dr) the preparations accor­ding to the six dayes work in the creation, the seventh being that glorious rest, when God comes in with his glory to the soul.

The first preparation is a glorious union, which union is 1 the fiery deity of Christ mingling, and mixing it self with our flesh.

The second is a glorious righteousnesse, Dan. 9.24. 2 which righteousnesse is not that saplesse, imputative righte­ousnesse of another (viz. Christ as he explained it) but, the fiery deity burning in the center of the soul.

The third is a glorious liberty, which liberty (said the 3 Dr) is not a liberty and freedome from the guilt of sin, the curse of the law, the wrath of God, purchased by the blood of another, and applied by the cleaving of the soul, but the fiery deity burning up our lusts, and corruptions in the center of the soul.

Two other passages of blasphemy there were uttered by the Dr, that were forgotten by Mr Tickhill, the Deponent, but after finding his paper, he doth remember them, and doth assert them (as upon oath.)

The first is this: That God in Christ, and Christ in the saints, is the unity in trinity, and trinity in unity.

The second is this: That Christ in his preparatory com­ing by his fiery deity, quite consumes, and destroyes all sin [Page 10] and corruption, which consuming of sin is that doing away of transgression, mentioned Dan. 9.24.

If it be said, Mr Tickhill is severe, and rigid, and so prejudice may barre the door against truth, then,

Secondly, we request that this testimony witnessed and signed with Mr Pendarvis his own hand, may be consi­dered.

These are to certifie whom it may concern, that in a ser­mon at Ildesly, Dr Pordage did deliver these following ex­pressions.

First, That Christ was a figure, and but a figure.

Secondly, That the Godhead was mingled with our flesh.

Thirdly, That the imputative righteousnesse of Christ, was but a saplesse righteousnesse.

Fourthly, the graces, and gifts of the spirit were but flesh.

Fifthly, That Dr Pordage did falsely accuse Mr Tickhill of coming on purpose to oppose him, neither of usThis work of providence (as it were) speak­ing thus, (as now we see it come to passe) yonder is a bla­sphemer, hear him, and dis­cover him. thought of his being there. I went, and he with me, to preach upon the desire of the people: what limitation us'd by the Dr, or whether any, I do not well remember.

Ita testor. Joh. Pendarvis.

Second Particular.

To the second, as to his witnesses, here we do unfeigned­ly professe, we are even fain to force our selves under much unwillingnesse, to this part of the animadversion, not that we regard any revilings, and censure, so as to be troubled, but because we are willing to live in peace. But because the matter of these articles charged, and proved, is of so high a concernment, that all that is dear and p [...]ecious to souls, in heaven, and earth is imbarqued in it; and because the Dr pretends visions, and those of such height, and glory (as he calls them) that the like have not been heard, or seen: and because his friends do intimate, that, these Angelicall vi­sions are in order to the pure preaching of the gospel to the Church, which hath been in Apostacy many hundred years, [Page 11] and because he layes such a weight upon his witnesses. Last­ly, because he hath published them to the world, and named them often in the text, and margent, we think it a duty in­cumbent upon us to write the truth, promising to deliver no­thing but the truth, and purposing not to write all the truth we might, merely for quietnesse sake, and to prevent family disturbance.

Truly it seems somewhat observable, that Dr Pordage, who hath enjoyed such visions of glory, (as he saith) hath such high discoveries, pretends to such a pitch of sanctity, and mortification, even to perfection. Having so much ac­quaintance in London, and in the Countrey, and being under so high a charge, as Blasphemy, Devillisme, Ʋncleannesse, and ignorance, that notwithstanding all this, he should bring no more, or no other witnesses in his behalf, then he hath done. And were it not that we desire to be serviceable to the publick, we might have spared this pains, (we have no itch to be in print) for the very consideration what man­ner of persons the witnesses are, hath given no small satisfa­ction of the Drs guilt, to all Christians hereabouts, that know him, and them.

The first witnesse for the Dr is Richard Higgs, we pur­pose not to mention the many ill-complexioned and hard speeches, which this man hath uttered against the ministry, and maintenance. This language now a daies passeth a­mongst many, rather for a prime character of a godly man, (as they stile it) then for any fault; many (and we speak it sadly to see them so befooled) have little else to shew for their religion, but their being scurrilous, against Ʋniversities, Ministers, Learning, and maintenance. Do we speak for our selves in this, or for the truth? the Lord knows, and our consciences know, and the day will discover it.

So that the gospel, religion, learning might thrive, & prosper, we should desire to be silent, though we sate in the dust; and whatever become of us, or ours, or them, we can in some measure be contented, so that the purity and power of the go­spel may dwell in the land.

This man is brought in by the Dr as his chief witnesse, [Page 12] he quotes him often, and doth preface his testimony, that, he is a pious, prudent, and a learned Christian, and therefore to be heeded by the people, and believed by the Com­missioners.

Thus he deposeth, that he heard the Dr preach at Bradfield upon, and for the imputative righteousnesse of Christ, and this he attested with much confidence, but now observe these particulars.

1 Being demanded by the Commissioners very often, and earnestly, to declare, what he conceived the Dr did mean by Christs righteousnesse, he would at no hand (although he was upon his oath) reveal it. We were suspicious at first that there might be some ugly, speckled toad lying under a wholsome sage leaf, some wretched familisticall blasphemy, under wholsome expressions, nothing more common: these late years past have discovered this practise, more then ma­ny former generations; and therefore we pressed him over and over, seeing he had been a seven years hearer at times, and a man intelligent, and one that penned the sermons, that he would tell, what he conceived the Dr did understand by Christs imputative righteousnesse, but there was no pre­vailing with him, he would not tell.

2 Being further asked what he himself meant by Christs imputative righteousnesse, he would not tell, nor answer; either, this was his weaknesse, that he could not tell, or else his wilfulnesse, that he would not. If the first, how grosse is his ignorance? and how unfit his testimony? if the second, what unconscionablenesse is this? he being sworn to speak the truth. But it seems to be his ignorance, for,

3 Being now prompted by the Dr, (from whom he confes­seth he had theThis practise of the Dr l [...]oks very ill favour­ed, for this is not the first time that he hath done so with his wit­nesses. paper before he came, prescribing what he should speak,) to say, the righteousness of Christ was his active and passive obedience, he did tell the Commissioners what he meant, but being further asked, what he meant by Christs active obedience, he answered, Christs death upon the Crosse. This pitifull answer makes us, who know his former profession, think, that the fiery Deity and visions of Bradfield, and a typicall Christ, are like to make this man [Page 13] to forget, if not to slight the knowledge of Jesus Christ, in the scripture; and now we have mentioned that blessed book denyed by many, and wofully neglected by most, the reader may observe in the next place somthing of this very witnesse.

Fourthly, This Deponent was much infected with the per­nicious 4 and now spreading heresie of anti-scripturisme, he denied the Bible to be the word of God, and from whence he should suck in this venome, we cannot imagine, but from Bradfield visions, we are satisfied that this also is one of the Drs opinions, even because, (though we have many other reasons,) this man so much his intimate and bosome friend, and grand and choise disciple, is of this judgement; these three particulars were witnessed to his face, before his friends, by sufficient testimony, as spoken by him.

That theThe Dr prints pag. 40. That Higgs said he spake of the essentiall word, which is utterly false, and besides m [...]kes the dis­course non­sence. Scriptures were not the word of God. 1

And being demanded, what they were then, if not the word, he answered.

That they were old declaratives 2

And then he spake thus to one of the company, in a wretched blaspheming way.

That, if we had theAnd sure they think they have, and would be very angry if it should be que­stioned, the Lord lo [...]k upon the land, so many familists or q [...]akers, so many Bible makers. spirit, we might make as good 3 scriptures as that and (to use his own expression) even thee, Will. Jennings, who was one of the company. Obj. But he professed the contrary, we reply let no man deceive you with vain words, sure it were a very sorry plea for a felon convict, to plead thus, I did not steal, for I professe my judgement is against theft, why doth not this man recant and expresse repentance for it, if he doth really renounce it? but seducers, and the seduced, especially seducers seldome or scarce at all will confesse their errours, for fear of loosing their credit and repute, which if they loose their work is quite spoiled: give us leave a little (though it be somewhat di­gressing yet it may be advantagious, and we are sure it is sea­sonable) to propose an instance or two first, a clamorous & followed Arminian * being much worsted in debate of the ge­nerall point, (as they term it) being asked after in private, by a person of honour, and piety, whether he were not ashamed to face it out so in publick, and whether he did not speak [Page 14] against his own light (he said) we must say something be­cause of the people, so said a great preaching Anabaptist­icall Arminian to an officer, a gentleman of integrity now in the army, dost thou think said the officer to him, that your answer to the argument was the meaning of the text, no, re­plyed the preacher, but I must say something; thus it was in this very case of Richard Higgs, who being intreated by one of us to recant, and repent of his all-destroying Anti-Scripturisme, the party solemnly protesting, that he intreated him, intirely for the good of his soul, and not to endanger him as to the civill magistrate, one standing by, like an E­lymas did diswade him from the acknowledgement of it, as his errour, and perverted him from doing his duty by confessing and giving God the glory, saying thus, Confesse, yea, that is that, they would have: if hereticks, and seducers of all sorts and sises had not bin practitioners in this black art of smothering the light, and holding down the truth, nay had they bin but so ingenious, as in case of a nonplus to have craved day, and said (as a learned man did, and e­very godly man would) I will answer thee to morrow, in all likelyhood, these foul heresies had bin rotting in their graves, which are now jetting and walking up, and down the streets, every where. but to proceed.

The next is Daniel Roherts, he is quoted by the Dr as a witnesse for him, and here we do professe our pen is very loath to give down its ink, we do find in us a very great a­versenesse from naming of any names, but, most of all, neigh­bours, but the Dr hath named them often, and pleads for them, and laies great stresse upon them, and the cause is Christs, therefore we may not seek the favour, or fear the face of man. Thus then, this person was first a separatist, then a preacher de se, thens a dipper, and aOur hearts ake to think what kind of persons all England over lay hands upon, and thrust themselves in­to the admini­stration of Christ's ordi­nance, breaker of bread, then, an Anti-Sabbatarian, (and that very day and time of the day, that he travelled with this mishapen errour in pub­lick, and miscarried, it pleased God, that there was a travell at his house with a birth of a mishapen child) then, anHow many thousand souls have bin robbed and ransacked by sturdy and bloudy heresies, little er­rours like little thieves first creep in at the casement, and let in the great ones after them. Ar­minian, much for that darling and intoxicating point which pleaseth at the heart, (and so hath a great advantage to [Page 15] spread) all carnall loose ones, viz, generall redempti­on, once a mortalist, now, a simple compounded Anabaptist, perhaps, he may think it an honour to him to be the last, and thank us for naming of it, if he doth, we did not mean it so, neither did we name it so, as to asperse him, nor to take of the least from his testimony, for that is little enough already, if it were a little lesse, it were just no­thing: but, to let the conscientious, understand who are the Drs witnesses in print, and to judge as he sees meet.

The next is Mary Pocock, a woman formerly of a trou­bled spirit, who seeking rest, and not finding it, hath turned aside to lying vanities, and hath layed out her money for that which is not bread, we are horribly afraid for her, that she is gone off quite from looking for justification and life by a Christ without her, a most Christ dishonouring, and a soul damning, yet a dandled and huggd opinion amongst very many, at this day; as to her testimony consider.

First, that she deposeth against Mr Tickhills and Mr Stevens oath, and Mr Pendarvis point blank, as though she were resolved, &c. Oh sad!

Secondly, She is one of the Drs family, fellowship, & the country saith, community as to goods, and it is thought, it may concern her, in case the Dr be ejected.

Thirdly, We are assured, the Drs tenet is, that he may say, and unsay, though he say in his book, twas said maliciously, to cast an odium upon him, and for his practise, we have found his answers most notoriously false, now this wo­man we fear, is too much one of his disciples.

Fourthly, This woman refused an oath at Reding when she was to speak for the truth, in some articles against the Dr, and the very next week, at Newbery when she appea­red for him, she was altogether as forward to take her oath.

Lastly, She being examined at Newbery, upon that oath which she had taken for the Dr, whether she did not relate to some persons of honour, how the Dr had contended with the Dragon, three hours in his chamber, saying to one another thou lyest, and thou lyest, and whether she did not relate that [Page 16] the Drs children were strangely acted in their legs, and thighs, and arms, and whether she did not relate to them, how Mrs Flavell had been in a trance, and how she had found the Philosophers stone, which had puzzel'd so many wise men, (viz.) the divinity in the humanity.

She made an answer in a carelesse way, to our amaze­ment, and pity, (sc.) she could not tell whether she told them so, or no, perhaps she did, perhaps she did not.

It is wonderfull strange, that such extraordinary passages, related by her in a glorying way, when they were reaking hot, nay when it was (as she phrased it) given in to her to re­veal them, and she did reveal them to persons of honour and unquestionable evidence, who do still attest it, and when she was minded of some circumstances of the relation, she did re­member something of them, it is much (we say) that she should no better remember this her own relation. doth not this woman think that she may say any thing to save the Dr from the world?

The third particular.

The Drs plea.

That these articles come not within the compasse of the Act against Blasphemous and Atheisticall opinions, by which Act the Commissioners are limited. pag. 54. This he pleads for himself, often in his book.


We are well assured that all fearing God in the nation, will with their souls consent with us, that the Deniall of the Godhead of our Lord Jesus, the making a piff at his precious bloud, and calling his compleat righteousnesse a poor, vain thing, that the Lord Christ is but a type, are blasphemies that open their mouth against heaven, and are of as high a nature, as wretched men, or damned spirits can be guilty of: and doe at once, so directly destroy scriptures, duties, or­dinances, graces, glory, all. Now if this defence of the Drs be true, we professe our unfeigned sorrow from our inmost hearts, that the blessed glory of our dear Lord Christ was no more consulted for, if there be no provision made, for the [Page 17] stopping of the mouth of blasphemy against the Lord Jesus, by the Civile Magistrate.

We professe we cannot but wonder at the great rashnesse of this Dr, and lament the dishonour (as we humbly think) that this vain man casts upon authority, in that he proclaims upon the house top, and tells it in Gath, that hideous bla­sphemies against Jesus Christ, are not punishable by the Commissioners of the severall counties; which God forbid, and we believe all the Saints will say Amen. And we do with case and comfort perswade our selves, that the supreme Magistrate doth not intend it, and will never suffer it.

Whereas some do blame the Commissioners for being immethodicall, for not reducing the articles under the head, ignorance, we answer, that the articles alledged, and proved, do indeed shew him guilty of the greatest ignorance, and in­sufficiency, that is imaginable, and doth abundantly clear the justice of the sentence: yet these articles when they were exhibited, were look'd upon as having too much hideous­nesse in them, that the Commissioners could not find in their hearts, to rank them under any other head, but that of bla­sphemy, and do still look on them as worthy to be branded with the blackest Epithite that hell can afford.

And if it be true (as some do say it is, and therefore do say, the Commissioners do they cannot tell what themselves, for these articles do not come under the act, as they pretend) then, we shall not be so quiet in our consciences as we desi­red, unlesse we beg leave to say, that it was no testimony of over and above kindnesse to Jesus Christ, in those persons that drew up that act, (& who they were, we professe before the searcher of hearts, we know not) to draw it up so, as not to mention, nor mean the safeguarding of his glory, from the tongues of blasphemers, which are set on fire of hell: We say again, if it be true, we do not say it is so, we cannot say it: and therefore, were we fit, (as indeed we are altoge­ther unfit,) we would in all humility beseech his Highnesse Honourable Counsell to take this matter into consideration, and to determine as they see cause, that so for the future, all clamours of men, and quibbles of counsellours may be pre­vented, [Page 18] and every article may be reduced under its own pro­per head. The ground of our request is this, we are fully perswaded they will never suffer any to be Preachers of the Gospel, who are blasphemers of the Lord Jesus, who is the substance of the gospel, in whom all the promises are yea, and amen, and whose precious bloud is the bloud of the everla­sting covenant.

We have been pressed in our spirits to this boldnesse, through the grief of our hearts, because we do in some pit­tance perceive what, through the wretched confidence of profane ones, and the secret confidence of morall ones in their own civile righteousnesse, and what through theFor so these would be thought. a­cutenesse of Socinianisme, and theFor so these would be thought. oaringnesse of Fami­lisme, and the croaking of the Quakers, and the spreading of all these, there are very poor, mean, and slight thoughts all the land over, in city and countrey, of the glory, love, bloud, and merits of our Lord Jesus, who is God over all, Blessed for ever. And let him be blessed for ever: as the great God, and our Saviour, Amen.

Lastly, Whereas the Dr complains how much he was in­jured by being represented by his enemies, and look'd upon by the Commissioners, as a conjurer, and sorcerer, and one that dealt in Negromancy, (as he called it) and black Ma­gick; and to this purpose, stuffs out his book with severall allegations of his own dear ones, to vindicate himself from Necromancy, and sorcery; this is nothing in the world but stramineous, chaffie stuff, put in to fill up a ragged book: for the Commissioners did not look upon him as a conjurer, but as an impostor, who made use of his apparitions, and visions, as a ministeriall way, viz. to confirm his blasphe­mies, to draw in disciples, and to confirm those that were so, vaunting himself thus, what? but one, but one in the whole creation, pretending, that other ministers knew no more of the gospel, then a dead horse, and why? because they are not Nicolaitanes and visioners.

But he complain's much pag. 71. that the Commissioners would not take in his witnesses, who could depose how he had preached against conjuration, which witnesses he names [Page 19] twice in the margent, to make his reader believe how grie­vously he was wronged.


Though the businesse be eccentricall, yet we will see what the witnesses could have said for the Dr against con­juration, they begin thus and say,

They heard the Dr preach in 653 at Bradfield, out of Psal.We cannot i­magine what verse, or ver­ses. were the text out of that Psalm 51. 51. thus, From the subtilty and craft of the fire­root, through the prying, and searching of it, doth arise all Necromancy, and all prying into such curious arts springeth from the fiery essence in the will of men and women, that stirreth them up, to pry into, and after such hidden curiosi­ties, this is the gate through which all hidden curiosities do enter. For this he quotes Exodus 7.11. Then the king cal­led all his wise men, &c, and at another time, he preached at Bradfield out of Matt. 4.5. and from thence he observed, that one pinnacle of the devils temple,, was the pinnacle of the unlawfull arts and forbidden sciences.

His use was this, he exhorts the people, and that as they love thir own souls, to take heed of this door, the subtilty of the dark Magicks. and bids them consider how the scri­ptures do condemn the lusting and prying mind: and for this quotes Acts 19.19. Those that used curious arts burnt their books. For the Divil, the Dragon, doth labour to carry up mens minds to the top of the pinnacle of dark Magicks.

What a sad thing is it, and who can chuse but pity the case of this Parish, to be fed with such husks, such allego­goricall, unprofitable, unsuitable discourses?

What should be in the Drs mind, to tell them of the fire root, and fiery essence, and the pinnacle of the devils temple? and so to conjure them, as they loved their souls to take heed of the black Magicks, poor creatures, we cannot imagine, unlesse it be this, that the Dr began to smell pow­der, there was a great noise of the Devils, at Bradfield, and there was the Ordinance for ejecting Ministers, preparing, the Dr was afraid the Priests would persecute him (for his [Page 20] light eclipsed there,) out of envy, he thought, they would article against him, as a conjurer, and therefore he preacheth in his flinty non sensicall way, against the Dark Magicks, and provides his own family, to observe, and bear witnesse, (for in all his thirteen weeks triall, there was not one inha­bitant a witnesse for him) and so in his margent he puts them in rank, and file, to bear witnesse.

He complains likewise in the same page, p. 71. how Mr Ford went about to stir up the Magistrate against him, as a blasphemer. And good reason, what harm is in that? what doth the Dr find himself a grieved at? is not he a bla­sphemer? or does not the civile Magistrate want stirring up? Mr Ford said his living was possessed, why, was it not? doth not he say, that there were an innumerable company of De­vils in his house? yea, but he saith, Mr Ford branded him for a conjurer: now, that is utterly untrue, and we believe he had no such thought in his heart.

The third Article.

That the discoveries of the sinfulnesse of sin, the terrours of the law, the death of Christ, the free grace of God, are fleshly and flashy discoveries.

To this the Dr gives no particularIn his print­ed book, he doth acknowledge it, and gives this reason, Because it was not comprehended in the Act against Bla­sphemies. Pity, if such a blasphemy, should have such a plea. But there, pag. 42. he tells the world, that even the discoveries of the free grace of God, and the death of Christ, are but weak, in comparison of the more full, and clear manifestations, and operations, of God, upon the soul, in bringing of it into divine union, and fruition. Answer. For our parts, we have ever thought, that the discovery of the Fathers rich grace and the most precious death of Christ, had been of all discoveries, the most glorious. St. Paul calls it a height, breadth, depth, and length, and these being too short, he tells us, it passeth all understanding. Ephes. 1.17. St. Peter tells us, That even the An­gels do pry into this glorious mystery. 1 Pet. 1.12. the word is [...], which signifies, propenso collo, & accurate introspicere. And for the weaknesse of these dis­coveries, we are content to be in the dark with St. Paul, who tells us, 2 Cor. 3. the last, We beholding as in a glasse, the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory, to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord. The true and indeed Saints of God, the more they behold by the eye of faith, in the pure, and clear glasse of the Gospel, the glory of the Lord Jesus, what he is in himself, how infinitely blessed, and self-sufficient, and what he hath done for them, in suffering such wrath, in conquering such enemies, in purchasing such glory, with much more, and all this, so freely, so fully, so unchangeably, for such wretched creatures as themselves, who are altogether as bad, as the worst in hell: we say, the more gracious souls do converse with these glories, the more they are transformed, and, that, into the same glorious image, and there they pro­ceed, even from glory, to glory, and all this is wrought in them, by the spirit of the Lord. It is not a weaknesse, but a wickednesse in this Dr, to call the discoveries of the Fa­thers grace, and the son, death, weak discoveries, im comparison, we demand in compa­rison of what? what discoveries are more glorious, and powerfull, then these? doth not the man mean his visions at Beadfield, and his tincturation? oh! detestable, in his Epistle. Dedicatory, he doth intimate the narrownesse, systemes, formes, darknesse, of his perse­cutours. Be it so, nay it is so, we arrogate not to our selves, we are nothing, and there is nothing more sometimes, upon our hearts, then this, that God would make our hearts to know our own nothingnesse. But we do professe to the world, that we would much rather by many thousand degrees, be in the dark with St. Paul, and St. Peter, then to be in the light, with David George, Caspur Swincfield, Henry Nicholas, John Pordage. answer.

The proof of this article.

The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill to the third article.

This Deponent saith, that the Dr delivered, That the discoveries of sin, the terrours of the law, the death of Christ, the free grace of God, are fleshly, and flashy discoveries: and, being crosse examined to the Drs interogatorie, he fur­ther saith, the very summe and substance of this article was delivered fully, and roundly, by the Dr, in the expresse words, for the substance, to the best of this Deponents re­membrance, and that without any limitation.

4 Article.

That the liberty, and freedome, spoken of, purchased by the bloud of Christ, and applied by the clinging, and clea­ving of the soul toWho is that another? how basely, and with contumely, doth this man speak of Christ? another, is not a liberty, or freedome, from the curse of the law, the wrath of God, but the fiery deity of Christ, in the center of our souls.

The third and fourth articles of the last charge, being of the same effect, shall be here added. viz.

The third article of the last charge.

That the bloud of Christ is not meritorious of any mans salvation.

The fourth article of the last charge.

That it was a poor thing, to live upon the bloud of Christ, and fetching it over again, in a contemptuous kind of speak­ing; Piff, said he, thou art a babe, thou knowest nothing, to live upon the bloud of Christ, that is a poor thing.


To the former of these articles being the fourth of the first charge, the Dr gives no particularAnd gives this reason in print, viz. not being within the act against blasphemy. Observe, what use this man makes of that act, in his printed answer, he puts in the word (only) a notorious untruth, pag. 43. studied on purpose to deceive. He saith, that Mr Tickhill did mistake, which is, not a mistake in the Dr, b [...]t an impudent untruth. answer.

His answers to the third and fourth articles of the last charge, are as followeth, viz.

To the third.

‘I call heaven and earth to witnesse, that such thoughts never entred into my soul, nor did such words, come out of my mouth; for my judgement ever hath been, and still is, that the bloud of Christ, is satisfying, reconciling, and cleansing bloud, that it is interceding, redeeming, merit­ing bloud, in relation to all those, who, through faith, and patience, come to inherit eternall life.’

To the fourth.

I acknowledge, that about four years since, some such expressions were uttered by me, to Mr Grip, but without any such intent, as may be supposed, by my accusers, and not with that circumstantiall aggravation, of repeating it in a contemptuous manner, which is butRead the proof, is not this an interje­ction of scorn­ing? a supposition of my adversary, and cannot be attested upon Oath, with­out his witnesse, pretends infallibly toHow should we know your thoughts, but by your words? know my thoughts, and purposes: Again, this being spoken to a particular person, upon a particular occasion, might be true, if the circumstances of the discourse were accordingly added, [Page 23] though, as here presented, it seems very monstrous.

Therefore to make things clear, I shall here insert some particular circumstances, which may present this article, though, in a new, yet, with a true face. I coming to Mrs Grips house, sheUntruth. took me into a private room, to have some conference with me alone, where sheFalse. read the ani­madversion. break­ing forth into a violent passion of tears, weeping, and wringing her hands, and pouring forth [...]itter complaints, and invectives against Mr Fowler, as that he was a grace­lesse man, a lier, and a slanderer, not worthy to come up into a Pulpit, or to have the name of a Minister of Christ, with other, such bitter expressions: the cause of which was, as she then told me, Mr Fowler's reporting about, that she then lived in adultery, with a gentleman not far off; and after her passion was somewhat allayed, she brake out into these, or such like expressions, of high assu­rance: Christ hath loved me, and died for me, and justi­fied me, by his blood, from all guilt of sin, I am an elect person, a justified person, and what is this Mr Fowler, toOh, the in­vention of man, not such a word spoken. charge sin upon me? these, and other expressions, fell from her, to this purpose, from some of which, I feared, she was drenched withA mere fig­ment, and base contrivance of his own heart. Antinomianisme, and told her more then once, it was a poor thing, to live upon the bloud of Christ, and to look so much upon that, except she had the nature of Christ, and the spirit of Christ; asking her, where was the meeknesse of Christ, the patience of Christ, to suffer as an innocent lamb, quietly.Oh, amaze­ing, that any man could de­vise such un­truths, so many, and all fore­thought, and deliberate; not a true word. But still she cri­ed out, she lived on the bloud of Christ. I told her, it was a poor thing, to be thus exalted, with notions of the bloud of Christ, without mentioning sanctification, and those holy graces, which flow from Christs nature, dwelling in the soul. Now by these expressions of mine, my scope was to make Mrs Grip see the necessity of sanctification, and of a pure and holy life, and not to make void the blessed effect of the bloud of Christ, applyed accord [...]ng to the mind of God, and true meaning of the scriptures: and now having related theSee what Mrs G [...]ip de­poseth to these circumstances, at the end of her deposition, circumstances, as near as I can re­memember, I believe a sober and knowing Christian will [Page 24] not judge me eitherThis fardell of studied un­truths is very scandalous. scandalous, or ignorant for these ex­pressions.

The proofs of the fore-mentioned articles. The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill.

This Deponent further saith, that the Dr delivered that the liberty, and freedome spoken of and purchased by the bloud of Christ, is not a liberty, or freedome from the guilt of sin, the curse of the law, the wrath of God. But the fiery deity of Christ, in the center of our souls.

And this Deponent being crosse, examined by the Dr, further saith, that the very summe, and substance of this ar­ticle, was delivered fully, and roundly by the Dr, in the expresse words, for the substance of them, and that, without any limitation, to the best of his remembrance.

Master Christopher Fowler Minister of S. Maries in Re­ding, and one of the Assistants to the Commissioners, sworn and examined, deposeth,

That about three weeks, or a moneth since, this Depo­nent acquainted Master Daniel Blagrave the younger, that these Commissioners did intend toThis gentle­man with o­thers was sum­moned to ap­pear by a war­rant from the Commissioners, to testify his knowledge as to this article, and some others, but did not appear. The Quae. What that clause intends in the Or­dinance, viz, the Commissioners shall issue forth summons, when the persons summon­ed will appear, if they please, and if they will not, they may chuse, (for so some have answered) had the appearance bin according to the summons, the doctrines, and deeds of darknesse had bin more dejected, by these renowned. summon him, to testi­fie what he knew of Dr Pordage's doctrine, in relation to Jesus Christ, and thereupon (among other things) the Deponent asked him, whether he did not hear the said Dr deliver, that, the bloud of Christ was not meritorious of any mans salvation, to which be answered, he had heard him speak to that purpose.

Susanna Grip, wife of John Grip, of Reding, Joyner, sworn, and examined.

This Deponent saith, that she told Dr Pordage, it was [Page 25] a high thing to live upon the bloud of Christ, to which he replyed, piff, to live upon the bloud of Christ, that is a poor thing, and repeated the same again, and said, thou art a babe, thou knowest nothing, to live upon the bloud of Christ, that is a poor thing, whereupon the Depo­nents heart fell almost dead with fear at his words.

And the said Susanna Grip being crosse-examined by the Dr, and asked, whether this was delivered in the same very words, sheObserve this passage, and judge of the Drs answer. answereth, in the same words, and they were spoken in the Kitchin about four years since, to her best remembrance, but who was there present, she doth not remember.

And this Deponent being further asked by the Dr upon what occasion this was spoken, she saith the Dr was spea­king something in a rambling manner, which she did not understand, but she thought she would speak something to him which he should understand, and rejoyce with her for it, and that was the occasion of the discourse, and she saith further, that the Drs words were delivered without any explanation of them, only this, she asking him (being rea­dy to faint) what then Dr. He answered, I do not know what the matter is, that I must speak to you, I do not use to That i [...] true, no more did the G [...]osticqu s of old, and the libertines of late, and the familists now, discover my self, but he told her something of a man that dyed at Jerusalem sixteen hundred years ago, and that she must have it in her, which she cannot remember, being then so amazed at his words, and the D [...]s answer to this article being read unto her, she deposeth that all the circumstances mentioned in his said answer, are all of them false, and un­true, there was nothing of such a discourse, as the Dr pre­tends, nor any thing tending to it, his answer was all false, and untrue.

George Aslet of Bradfield, Weaver, sworn, and exami­ned, deposeth.

That he hath heard Dr Pordage in the Church of Brad­field, about two years since deliver, that, it was a vain thing to trust in thethe Dr prints that he hath had wonder­full visions of the three worlds. 76 p. in which of these worlds think you did he see this ve­ry accursed doctrine, was it in the world of Divells or, the world of Angels, or, of glory, our very hand trembles at the writing of this, and every godly heart abhorres it, at the very reading this single pass [...]ge discovers of what order his angels are, and of what kind his visio [...]s. bloud of him, that dyed at Jerusalem sixteen hundred years since or more, unlesse it were acted in [Page 26] me, or in thee, for that was but in the type, the substance must be fulfilled in us, and that Christ must be crucified in us, that Pontius Pilate must condemn him in us, and the Jewes put him to death in us, crucified in us, that he must lye buried three dayes in us, and must rise in us, and must ascend in us▪ otherwise it was a vain thing to believe in him that dyed at Jerusalem sixteen hundred years since, or more, without us.

This Deponent crosse examined.

Being asked in the Drs behalfe whether he did write down the fore-mentioned particulars, or not, he answereth, negatively.

And being further asked, whether he did complain of the premises within six months, to any justice of peace, after the speaking thereof, he answereth he did not, nor didBut now he sees cause to complain, for he came in of his own free accord, unexpectedly, and blessed God for the government, authorizing persons to whom he might complain. find any cause so to do.

Animad. 2.

Acerrini morsus morientium ferarum, wild beasts near their end, bite so fiercely, they will even make their teeth meet, the unclean spirit rends, and foams when he is a de­parting, and to be ejected, what ailes this Dr to imagine on his bed, and when he cometh forth to tell such a forged, lying tale; 'tis true, his words seem smooth as oyle, but they be very swords he doth not bark much, but he bites, and bites the deeper, because he doth not bark. We conceive the Dr fitting in counsell with his thus, what shall we do to blast this testimony the accuser hath brought in before these men [Page 27] of the world? so it saith that I should blaspheme the bloud of their Christ, their ordinance will reach me, or they will stretch it, and the Priests are rigid, advise what is best to be done I know Mistris Grip is the witnesse against me though she doth not appear, nor it named, my conscience tells me so. Re olved upon the question, that it is lawfull for the Dr to say what he please to the commissioners to [...]ave himself▪ and to say what he please of the witnesses to blast them, and their testimony,

The Dr labours might and main to overthrow this testi­mony, knowing that this (concurring so directly, with M [...]ster Tickhills, and Master Stevens) would help to o­verthrow him, for his overthrowing the very foundation of faith, and godlinesse.

We desire the discreet Reader to observe hisWe cannot find more smooth epi­thi [...]es, w [...] hope it is not b [...]tter­nesse, but some better thing, tis in the 'cause of Christ consulting­ly forged answer, & ex ungue leonem to see him by this paper, as he in his visions did the Devill by his cloven foot, pag. 74. of his book.

Thus he tells you how he came to Mistris G [...]ips house, and how he found her in a very exceeding great passion, with tears, and cries, and wringing her hands, using bitter invectives against Master Fowler; and he tells you the reason why (viz.) because he reported to the gentry there­about, that she lived in adultery with a For this was in h s answer before the Com­missioners, but as he can say, and unsay, so he can put in, and put out even in print. What an [...]ngratefull man is this, thus to bespatter, and dis­grace, (so far as in him lyes) one of his best friends, in the face of a multitude: he resolves to hazzard all his friends, to attempt any thing, so he may enfeeble this sub [...]tantiall evidence. gentleman, not far off, and how he was afraid th [...] she was drenched with An­tinomianisme, and therefore discoursed to her of the nature and spirit of Christ.

To disprove this, we offer these considerations.

First, that Mistrisse Grip being then upon her oath, did solemnly appeal to the Lord of heaven, the searcher of all hearts, that she did not speak a sword of Master Fowler, [Page 28] neither had so much as a thought of him, and that she was so far from tears and wringed hands, (as this man feignes) That she was in some measure of joy, in the apprehension of Jesus Christ, and she did affirm, before God, the Commissio­ners, and above two hundred persons, that it was all false, and a mere forgery, not a word of it true.

Secondly, Consider this, that about a fortnight before his tryall was at the Bear in Reding, Master Daniel Bla­grave told her the said Mistris Grip that the Dr would de­clare to the Commissioners, how she had railed against Master Fowler, upon which, she came to Master Fowler's house immediately, where Master Nutkins, one of the Commissioners, with some friends, then was, and she was exceedingly moved at the Drs impudence, & wickednesse, ad­miring how he could raise such a report, saying, she did not think he could have bin such a Divell, and there solemnly did averre, before some Christians, that she did not speak to the Dr so much, as one word of Master Fowler, and did conceive it to be a plot to affright her. So that as the D [...]s ly­ing answer was premeditated, through wickednesse, her answer upon her oath, was premeditated also, through pro­vidence.

Thirdly, As to that passage of the Drs contriving, or some of his Angels, what Master Fowler should report &c. Master Fowler remembers not any such thing reported by him to any of the gentry, as his own judgement; the truth is, many of the gentry have rather wondered at his sparing­nesse, and silence, when occasion of such discourse hath bin offered, the ground of which silence was sincerely this, when he looked upon the reports of many, six or seuen years since, and the suspicions of some godly persons, he durst not justifie her, and on the other side, when he looked upon her profession, gifts, expressions, temptations, he durst not con­demn her especially when he looked upon her temptations, which he believed to be reall, and his judgement is, that a tempted person may without any great difficulty discern the temptations of another, whether they are from pretence. and hypocrisie, or whether they are from reality, and [Page 29] feeling, especially if they have frequent conference.

What passages of lewdnesse there have bin, or whether any he knovves not, he hath spoken unto them both of this very sin, six years since in private, and both did deny it, he leaves them, and the issue to God, but the rise of the Drs forgery and lying. he believes upon good ground to be so false, that he thinks the first deserves the Pillery, the second may claim the whetstone, and the D [...]s design to blast her testimony, vvill stand heavy upon his account, unlesse he come to be vvashed, vvith that most invaluable bloud of Christ, vvhich he hath esteemed as a poor thing.

Fourthly; Again consider that this Deponent Mistris Grip did relate this of the Drs blasphemy to Master Fowler, and the other, of apparitions with indignation & grief, before ever the ordinance for ejecting came forth, saying to him and others, shall this blasphemer continue to bewitch souls? and will the higher powers do nothing? shall such be tolera­ted also? now, whether this woman, who professeth tender­nesse of spirit, even against the least untruthes ha­ving spoken much against this mans blasphemies, and visi­ons, before any Commissioners were in being, and there be­ing betwixt them no personall grudge, (as to the world, she is a looser, and did expect to be so before hand,) should so solemnly depose before God and Angells an untruth, we leave it to the judgement of indifferent men.

Fifthly, Besides if the Drs discourse were (as he pleads clearly against his own conscience) such, as it is in his an­swer, let the Reader consider, what colour even in the least can there be, for Mistris Grips question, (viz) what then Dr? and his answer to that question, (viz.) I do not use to reveal my self, but I do not know, what the matter is, I must speak to you; for consider, what is there in the Drs answer, but that any man may speak to any person.

But this is just like Master Erbury, who, when he had spoken most bitter things against the Lord Jesus, to an un­derstanding christian (of which you shall hear by and by) clapt him on the arm, telling him, I do not use to reveal my self so to others.

The truth is, the Dr seeing Mistris Grip to be fixed, and knowing her testimony would be looked on as con­sciencious, and in some hopes of his own foolish heart, thinking to make her a Proselyte, and on that account ha­ving revealed to her that, which he knew would very much discover him, he thought to try this last attempt, whether he might affright her out of her testimony, but this would not do, she being throughly resolved to go through all re­ports to bear witnesse against such horrid blasphemies, for the glory of Jesus Christ.

But the Dr goes on, and saith she is perjured, and why? because she saith, she never railed against Mr Fowler in her life, see p. 62.

1. Consider her answer, registred by the Clark, and read by him, at the command of the Commissioners, to all the people.

2. Mrs Grips answer was this, The Lord knows it is all false, false, never, never: any indifferent person may see the question is not, whether, she did ever rail in her life, but, whe­ther at that time, as the Dr pretends, and which railing at that time, upon such a report, was the rise, and ground of the Drs discourse with her.

And here the Commissioners did severall times offer the Dr, and all his friends, that if any one could say any thing, to evidence the Drs answer to be true, wh [...]ch Mrs Grip did depose to be false, he should be heard, with all freedome and willingnesse; but no man appearing to the point in hand, the Commissioners proceeded to some other articles, for which this bold fellow doth asperse them for unconsciona­blenesse, injustice.

But who are his printed witnesses, p. 62. with which he makes a noise, and clamours upon the proceedings, by this way deceiving many, and hardening more.

1. Mr Richard Stockwell is quoted, and set forth (by the Dr) as a pious, sober Christian. pag. 63.

Ans. We wish him so, with all our hearts, this man was profered his oath, if he could testifie any thing of Mrs Grip, railing at Mr Fowler, as the Dr pretends in his answer, she [Page 31] did, which he could not do, and so was not admitted as a witnesse.

Obj. But the accuser saith, this man, Richard Stockwell, is an Erburist.

Ans. And he must say so still, upon the reasons which he gave to the Commissioners, till Richard Stockwell saith no.

Having so fit a season, we desire leave to speak a little of Mr Erbury, we have no thoughts in our hearts to rake up the ashes of the dead, he is gone to his account, and stands, or falls to his own master: we do it, in a little subserviency to the glory of Christ, by undeceiving, (if he please to make us instrumentall) if it be, but one soul in the nation, espe­cially about London, and in this county. Upon personall knowledge, and upon the oath of Christians, (if called to it) we declare, that these were his positions.

First, That the Father in flesh, is the Son.

Secondly, That the Father in Adam, and so downward, is Christ.

Thirdly, That the fulnesse of the Godhead is in Christ, and the saints, as the soul is in the head, and foot.

Fourthly, That Jesus Christ was man as he, and no more God.

Fifthly, That it is blasphemy to say that Jesus Christ made an atonement, for the sins of Gods elect.

Sixthly, That coming to a murderer sentenced to die, he said, thou hast killed a man, what if thou hadst killed a hundred? I tell thee for thy comfort, God is in thee, but thou dost not see it, but thou shalt see it.

These upon credible testimony.

1. That there is neither good, nor evil, but as men appre­hend it.

And that he might do any thing if his mind did lead him to it.

Positions enough to astonish the heavens, and shake the earth, and tend our very bowels; from another guesse man then this Dr. both for life and learning. But he is gone to Eternity, and to us that knew him, out of his grave he [Page 32] preacheth a sermon upon that text, Rom. 11.20. Thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear. let us pray, pray, pray, that God would keep us in the knowledge, love, and practise of all divine truth. But to return.

The next witnesse for the Dr, to prove that Mrs Grip did rail, &c. is John Tench. p. 63.

We wonder that this witnesse also is not encomiasted with the titles of a sober, & pious Christian, we cannot tell what this man would swear, but we know with sadnesse of heart what he saith, he hath twice in publick denied the bloud of Christ, to be the bloud of God, and this (as we fear) not through mistake, or ignorance, for he was often told, and severall scriptures were alledged to that purpose, (viz.) that it was the bloud of a divine person, not of the divine nature, but he still persisted in his foolish (to say no more) cavillations, and afterwards said to one of us, that Christ died, and rose again, and then became God.

This is one of John Tawneys followers, a blasphemer of the Lord Christ, a slanderer of Christians for his sake, a late abettor of the Anti-scripturall Quakers at Reding, and one, whose inconsiderablenesse makes him audacious.

The rest are Eleanor Burly, Mrs Kent, ibidem, and in another place John Hambleton is quoted.

What savour these three have among understanding Christians that know them, we will leave to others, the very naming of the last, will make those that know him, e­ven to hold their noses.

Ob. See how bitter these Priests are, and how rigid.

Ans. Our reply is this, we have concealed many passa­ges that we might have rehearsed, to avoid this very obje­ction, but we do conceive it inevitable, and unreasonable too, for, this objection will be made by those, who have gall, and bitternesse, and are the most bitter people in the world; if our relation be false, we yield to suffer, if it be true, why are we bitter? is it because we will not see the ever­lasting Deity, the precious bloud, the blessed word and ordi­nances [Page 33] of Jesus Christ, trampled, denied, blasphemed, and sit still with our hands in our pockets, but according to our mea­sure, speak a word for him, and his? is this bitternesse? then the Lord make us more bitter; in these fundamentalls Jesus Christ will give us but little thanks in the day of our ac­count, for our Gallionisme, or moderation.

Obj. But grant for once, that these witnesses are against ordinances, sabboths, scriptures, grace, Christ, (for so they are, some of them against most, and every one of them a­gainst some) yet their testimony is legall.

Ans. It is confessed, and their testimony was received as such, and we desire it may be weighed, with all our hearts.

Obj. The Commissioners would not receive their wit­nesse.

Ans. We reply, This is a sordid, and false imputation of the Drs upon them, they were examined, the Dr had his li­berty to propose any questions, and to produce any witnes­ses, it is confessed, the Commissioners did refuse some of the witnesses, because they could not speak to the matter in hand, as, when it was deposed, the Dr had spoken blasphe­my at one time, in one place, they offered to depose that they heard him speak otherwise, at another time, and in another place, and this is the naked truth, yet the Commissioners are clamoured upon, by him and his friends, in Court, in ci­ty, in town, in countrey, even for crucifiers. &c.

To conclude, that a man of such pretended glories, vi­sions, sanctity, likened even to Christ almost, as to have no sin for the Devil hardly to work upon him by, should have no more, no other, to appear in his behalf, but as thou hast seen, Reader, seems to us wonderfull, observable.

The fifth article of the first charge.

That by male, and female Genesis the 1. we are to un­derstand by male, the Deity, and by female, the humanity, and that these two become one flesh.

Adde to this two other articles of the last charge, viz.

That he preached at Bradfield and did labour to defend it pertinaciously, that the little horn in Dan. 7. vers. 8. was Christ, and being told that the horn made war with the Saints, yet he persisted to say that he was Christ.

That he is ignorant and insufficient for the work of the Ministry.

The Drs Answer.

To the first of these the Dr gave no particular an­swer.

Animadver. 3.

The Dr could not tell what to say then, but since in his book. pag. 44. he answers thus to this article.

That by male and female might be shadowed forth the Deity and pure humanity, the male representing the Deity, the female the pure humanity, which by union become one, the spirit of the soul brought up by Christ into a mysticall union, is made partaker of the divine nature.


What un-edifying matter, and language is this? is this to speak to edification, exhortation, and to comfort? is not this and all the rest taken out of the euangle of Henry Ni­cholas, and Jacob Behmen? is there not a serpent in this grasse? Irenaeus observes of the Gnosticks, that they did with Scripture words, and phrases, as if some skilfull Artist should make with precious stones and pearles, the most ex­quisite effigies of some Heroique prince, and when it is done, and compleated, in comes some phantasticall fellow, and pulls it all to pieces, and with the same stones and pearles, goes, and makes the picture of an ape, or a dog. How hate­full is this saith that Father as it was then, even so it is now, the Gnosticks in the first times, and the Familists, and Qua­kers, in these last times differing no more, (some circum­stances excepted) then Simon Magus differs from Simon the Sorcerer, the Familists take Scripture words, phrases, and expressions, which shine as pearles in that place, and [Page 35] meaning where the hand of the blessed spirit hath set them, and they dismember them, and pluck them asunder, and with them, according to their own whimsies, they make sometime an ape, or a dog, or both; sometime non-sence, or blasphemy, and oftentimes both, as for instance, such ex­pressions as these, Christ in you, the fellowes of Christ, Christs brethren, partakers of the divine nature, I in them, and they in me, you need not that any man teach you, taught of God, perfect as the Father, the letter killeth, the spirit to God &c. Now consider how our new Gnosticks wrest, and rack these scriptures, and make them speak, what they never meant, how do they take these pearles, these choise texts of heaven, and with them make pictures of hell? e. g. I, as Christ, Godded in God, a typicall Christ, you are Christed, partakers of the divine essence, that of God to God, and body, and soul to the grave, fleshly ordinances, carnall scriptures: &c. We need not quote the texts, where these phrases are, neither need we name the men that handled them thus, in­deed we cannot, they are more in number, then we can count.

The Dr in his printed answer to this article, speakes much of the souls union. We desire to speak a word, not to amaze as he doth, but to benefit the Reader.

We do acknowledge a reall, spirituall, eternall union be­tween Christ & Saints, & when we think of it, sometime a lit­tle fire kindles, and we say, Lord, what is man? our hearts close with that of a godly learned Reynold Conf. with Hart. cap. 1. Divis. 2. man, spoken upon an oc­casion something like this, and very proper to these dayes, the unity (saith he) that the Scripture notes is of three sorts, first, of persons in one nature, secondly, of natures in one person, thirdly, of natures and persons in one quality, in the first is one God, in the second is one Christ, in the third is one Church. i. e. The company of the elect called, and sanctified by one spirit, partakers of one Baptisme, knit to Christ by one faith, among themselves in one love, to serve one Lord, in one hope of one eternall glory: the first and second of these unions, we desire to believe, because they are written, and to admire, because they are exceeding glo­rious, [Page 36] the last union by the spirit, and faith, we desire to feel, and experimentize in our own souls, knowing that in these cob webby times of vain speculations, one beam of Gods love, one drop of the bloud of Christ upon our hearts, one witnesse of the spirit in ordinances, will doe us more good, then all the meteors, and notions in the world.

But as for H. Ns, union, of being christed in Christ, and I. Ps. union, of the deity and pure humanity to be one flesh, and W. E. union of God is in thee, and thee, and the N. Qs, union, to be Christ, a part of God, we desire to look on them, as more abominable, then abomination it self. nay more ugly then hell it self.

To the second and third his answers followeth.

Concerning the little horn. Dan. 7. to be Christ.

This article was four years since exhibited against me, from which I was discharged by the Committee, Richard Higgs, John Higgs, and Richard Luington attesting on oath, that I paraphrasing on the seventh of Daniel, and speaking of the little horn, said, that some interpreters would have the little horn, in the letter to be Antiochus Epipha­nes, a bloudy, and persecuting tyrant, others think the little horn to be the Turk, who is a great persecutor of Christi­ans,Mark this phantasticall ignorance, if not worse, for by such a mysticall liberty names may be apply­ed, that we dare not name, which, how dreadfull is it? But in the mystery in regard of his power, we will apply it to the power of Christ in a christian, who is often in Scripture resembled to the horn of David, and to the horn of salvation, and that upon three considerations. In regard that Christs power in the soul, doth appear to be a little horn, a small despised instrument to sence, and rea­son, for flesh and bloud look upon it, as a poor instrument in regard of bringing down the strength of sin in us.

Secondly, In regard of sin, andThis man be­lies the Divell, who quakes at an ordinance, much more, at Christ's power, his fear that Christ will exert, and put forth an act of power, into the heart through an ordinance is so great, that he even trembles at the thoughts of it, the very addresse to the solemn reading of a chapter will make the Divell sad, he is afraid of the issue, your anti-ordinance men in England, are the best friends that he hath had this many a day, Sathan, who, laugh the power of Christ in the soul to scorn, yet before him his ac­cursed kingdom must fall.

[Page 37]3. In regard of its birth, & beginning in the soul, it is at the first, as a veryWe have heard the pa­rable, in re­gard of grace that to be little at first, but never of Christs power to be little, till now. litttle grain of mustard seed, yet in due time it will destroy the kingdom of sin, and set up the kingdom of holynesse in us, having thus drawn away the vail from this article, I hope it appears with a more tolerable and in­nocent face.

That I am very ignorant, and insufficient for the work of the Ministry.

I believe those that exhibite this article against me, up­on tryall will beAll the pre­cedent articles prove it (if some of them should not come within the act, for blasphemy, (which plea i [...] his Diana) yet, they all prove him to be ignorant, and insufficient, in a very high de­gree of both, found very ignorant, and insufficient to judge of it, and as to those that are to be my judges, I hope they will not make their wills the rule of ignorance and in­sufficiency, But proceed according to the Canons of pure reason, or supernaturall revelation, in giving judge­ment concerning this particular, the event of which I leave to God.

The proofs of the aforesaid articles.

The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill of Abingdon.

This Deponent saith, that the Dr did deliver that by male and female. Gen. 1. We are to understand by male the Deity, by female the humanity, and that these two are one flesh, and being crosse examined, he further saith, that the Dr did deliver these expressions with approbation, and the Deponents hath cause to believe it was his own judge­ment, and as far as he doth remember it was delivered as his judgement.

The second was fully proved upon oath before the Justices, by Francis Smith, of Bradfield, who went to the Dr about it, being much offended, and told him the little horn made war with the Saints, yet the Dr did still pertinaciously maintain it, and spake evill of those that opposed him in it.

The aforesaid George Aslet of Bradfield further deposeth, and saith.

That the said Dr about a moneth since, did deliver, that [Page 38] doubtlesse, the Apostle in that text. 1 Cor. 6. (know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the holy Ghost,) did notWhy doth the Dr quarrell at this text? unlesse it be ur­ged here, as a forcible argu­ment against fornication. mean these earthly bodies.

And this Deponent further saith, that the Dr did deliver that by that text Gen. 18. vers. 19. (I know him, that he will command his children, and his houshold after him, &c.) was not meant the outward houshold of Abraham, but his inward houshold, his will and affections, which he was Lord Paramount over; and he quoted that text in the last of Joshua, (as for me, and my house, we will serve the Lord,) which he likewise said, was meant of the inward, and not the outward house,Observe his Allegoricall phancies, pro­ved by pro­found reason. he confesseth in his book. p. 87. in the margin, That by Abrahams family was meant his will and affections in a misticall sence. But how his will, and affections, could be his family after him, indeed is very misticall: in his Epist. Ded. to his highnesse, he doth as much as say, that, he a precious saint, is ejected by the ministers, because his interpretation of scripture, cannot suit with their darknesse. for a man (said he) cannot command his wife, and children; and he further saith, that these words were delivered about two yeares since, to the best of this Deponents remembrance, and the Deponent saith he judged those expressions to be contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost, in those scriptures.

The sixth article of the first charge.

That the gifts and graces of the spirit are but flesh.

The Drs answer is as followeth.

‘I confesse, I said the common gifts, and graces of the spirit were but flesh, but this I opened after this manner, they wereUntruth. compare with this, Mr Ste­vens deposition to this article. but fleshly, weak, carnall, in the point of Ju­stification, in point of trust, and confidence, in regard of salvation, and life eternall, and no otherwise, as theirUntruth. this witnesse was Mr Pen­darvis, as the Dr prints him to this article, p. 45. Mr Pendarvis saith no such thing at all, in his testimony, under his own hand. own witnesses, on examination confessed, before the honourable Committee of Berks.

The proof of this article.

The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill,

This Deponent further saith, that he heard the Dr deliver in discourse with Mr Pendarvis, that the gifts, andThe Gno­sticks (in Ire­naeus) gave out, that they were the spi­rituall, and had no need of any of those graces, and gracious actions, which were requi­red in other men. They were the [...], moved by an higher principle, and di­vine revelation. graces of the spirit are but flesh, and that there was no limitation whatsoever, in the delivery thereof.

In the behalf of the Dr.

The aforesaid Mr Roger Stevens being asked by the Dr, whether he did not acknowledge before the late Committee, that the said Dr did expresse the common gifts, and graces of the spirit to be flesh, To this he saith, he did not hear those expressions in his sermon, but in a dispute afterwards, he heard the Dr say, that he did either say, or mean the common guifts, and graces of the spirit; and that he offered a scripture to prove it by, viz. that place, Isa. 40. (all flesh is grasse, If this text would prove any thing, it must prove them to be grasse, not flesh. mark his Logick, thus, all flesh is grasse, ergo, the gifts and graces of the spirit are flesh.) and the Deponent testified the same, to the said Committee.

Mary Pocock sworn, and examined.

Being asked in the Drs behalf, how he did open those ex­pressions of the gifts, and graces of the spirit, in his sermon at Ildesly, she saith, as to what the Dr delivered in the said sermon, to that particular, she cannot depose.

The seventh article of the first charge.

That Christ is a type, and but a type.

Adde to this the second article of the last charge, being of the same effect.

The second article of the last charge.

That Christ was not perfect, alledging that text to con­firm it, because he cried out my God, my God, &c.

The Drs answer to the first of these is,

‘This was in conference, he asked me whether Christ were a type or no: I answered, Christ was a type soHe is not so expressed, but thus, he left us an example, the word is not [...], but [...], a Metaphor ta­ken from a Limner, or Scriuener, [...], leaving us an example 1 Pet. 2.21. ex­pressed, the 1 Pet. 2.21. How was Christ a type, said Mr Pendarvis? I answered, his life and conversation was a type, that is, a pattern and example, for us Christi­ans to square our conversations by; who denies this? said he, why I affirm no more, said I, then that Christ is a type; is he but a type, replied Mr Pendarvis? I an­swered, why ly ye thus upon the catch? I say Christ is aIt is very improper, and too much in any man, but in you, horrid, tell us of what Christ is a type, when the thing tipified is come, the type ceaseth, when you are Christed, then Christ ceaseth, and you and he are well met, is not this your direfull meaning? type, but I will not affirm Christ is but a type, and this they both confesse in their answers.’

The Drs answer to the second.

‘;I do nakedly, without any vails, professe, that I ever did, and still do look upon Christ as a most perfect Copy, and Pattern, to square our lives and conversations by:Utuntur prae­claris senten­tiis, they use excellent speeches, as if they would ex­toll the vertue of Christ, but it is onely to cover the tur­pitude of their doctrine, all their speech tends to this, that, whatever Christ did, or suf­fered, was only an histrionicall action, or a shew exhibited on a theatre, in which the mi­stery of salvation is figured. Calvin. adver. lib. cap. 17. p. 535: opuscul. yea, and to be a perfect Mediatour in reference to the world, he undertook for the redemption of the world, be­ing free from the least tincture, either of originall, or actu­all sin, and truly the thought of any such things never lodged in my heart. But suppose I uttered such expressions as these, yet the manner of it will sufficiently free me from the guilt my accuser may hope, and believe I am obnoxi­ous [Page 41] to by it. I confesse I uttered these or the like words, yet it was onely in relating to what I heard in a sermon ofMr Blagrave saith that the Dr never spake a word of Mr Erbury nei [...]her white nor bl [...]ck: an un­wo thy shift, to throw it upon the dead. Mr Erburies at Somerset-house, who at that time en­deavoured to ennumerate Christs supposed imperfections, whereof he made his crying out on the crosse in those ex­pressions one, Now I leave it to your considerations whe­ther my relating to some that were wise, and knowing what I heard from another, with much grief to my soul, makes me any way culpable, or guilty.’

The Proofs of these articles.

The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill further deposeth,In eo constitu­unt redempti­onem nostram, quod Christus solùm velut ty­pus fuit. idem ibidem. that he heard the Dr deliver, that Christ was a type, and but a type, and being crosse examined, he further saith, the Dr did en­deavour to prove Christ was but a type, out of S. Peter, where he is called [...].

The aforesaid Mr Christopher Fowler further deposeth, That about three weeks, or a moneth since, in discourse with Mr Daniel Blagrave the younger, This Deponent then ask­ed the said Mr Blagrave, whether he had not heard the Dr say, that Christ was not perfect, to which he answered, yes.

John Grip of Reding Joyner, sworn, and examined, deposeth.

That he was at Mr Blagraves house, when the said Mr Blagrave was ill, and kept his chamber, and the said Mr Blagrave and the Deponent fell into discourse about Dr Pordage, in presence of Mrs Blagrave, and that in the said discourse Mr Blagrave told his wife, that the Dr held strange opinions, such as were not agreeable to the word of God, for he did maintain that Jesus Christ was not God, but that he was a type, and but a type, man, and not God, the shadow, and not the substance, and Mr Blagrave did labour very much to take off his wives affection from the Dr, and his wayes, but he could not prevail.

This Deponent further saith, that sometime the last sum­mer Mr Charles Blagrave told him that the Dr should say that Christ was not perfect, and quoted that scripture men­tioning [Page 42] our Saviours passion (when he cried out, My God, my God, &c.) to prove the same.

In behalf of the Dr.

The aforesaid Mary Pocock further deposeth, that she heard the Dr maintain in hot discourse with Mr Pendarvis, that Christ was a type, and proved it out of S. Peter, (he was an example) and she heard the Dr say he would notHe would not stand to it what Arrian, Socinian, or F [...]milist scarce ever would? Observe what the fear of the Magistrate will do upon blasphemers. stand to the word but, That he was but a type.

John Pordage sonne to the Dr, aged between 19. and 10 yeares, sworn, and examined deposeth.

That in a dispute between the Dr his father, and Mr Pen­darvis, about five or six years since, about Christs being a type, the Dr said that Christ wasObserve his sons testimony. but a type; to which Mr Pendarvis said, do you say but a type, whereunto the Dr answered, he did not stand to but a type, it was onely a slip of his tongue, but he maintained that Christ was a type.

Animadver. 4.

To weaken the testimony of John Grip the Dr prints pag. 42. a letter from Mr D. Blagrave, to the Commissi­oners, consisting of these two parts. First, I dare not con­demn the innocent, Secondly, I do not remember I said so to Mr Grip.

Ans. We confesse, there was a letter sent from that Gen­tleman, but the testimony of this letter was indirect, and the letter was refused by the joint consent of the Commissioners, because Mr Blagrave was twice summoned by their war­rant, and did not appear: some say he would not, others think he durst not.

The Dr saith, that Mr Blagrave being detained about earnest businesse at London, could not appear according to summons, and therefore wrote this letter. And yet in all that letter there is not so much as one civil hint that he gives of his taking notice, of any such summons at all. No, no, his letter was nor an intended answer to the summons, there were other weighty motives for it.

Upon this account we might have spared the readers paines, and our own, passing by this letter in silence. But be­cause a copy of it is granted out in favour to the Dr, and is now travelled farther then where either Mr Blagrave or the Dr are known, (for where they are, we fear it not) and so may raise some prejudice amongst some, who are willing to lay hold upon a bulrush, therefore we judge it as a duty in­cumbent upon us, to take liberty of proposing a few questi­ons to Mr Blagraves conscience.

First, Doth Mr Blagrave think in his heart that the Dr is innocent? doth not his conscience tell him that he heard the Dr assert, that Jesus Christ was not GOD? and doth this man call this innocencie? if this be innocencie, then we confesse we are to seek what is blasphemy, or what can be guilt: doe not Mr Trapham and Mr Tickhill depose it? nay, doe not the Dr, and his own brother confesse it? and yet Mr Blagrave the then Chaireman saith, the Dr is inno­cent. We desire to know in which of the Drs worlds he finds, that blasphemy against the Lord Jesus is innocence. Yet further, when Mr Trapham told Mr Blagrave of the Drs denying Christ to be God, and he returned this faint answer, sc. then we must take another course with him, then, even in the same breath, the Dr replied to Mr Blagraves head, But Christ is not Jehovah; and is this innocence? Oh the patience of God! Beyond all this, Mr Blagrave being told in the town Hall at Reding, that the Dr should say be­fore him, that Christ was not Jehovah; Mr Blagrave an­swered, yea, but he doth not deny Christ to be GOD though; as if the Lord Christ might be God, though he be notJehovah our righteousnesse, Jer. 23.6. if he had not bin the first, viz. Jeh [...]vah, he could never hav [...] bin the last, viz. our righteousnesse. Jeho­vah, (as the Socinians say, that Christ may have the worship of God, though he be not God by nature) and is this in­nocence too?

This last was deposed before the Commissioners, by Mr Stevens, an understanding Christian, who being justly of­fended with Mr Blagraves countenancing the Dr in his bla­sphemies, told him of it to his face, and from him received the fore-mentioned answer, about seven moneths since.

Secondly, In the letter he saith, he doth not remember [Page 44] that he told John Grip, the Dr should say Christ was but a type, a shadow, man, and not God.

Ans. We affirm, that upon the shewing the printed pas­sage of the letter to John Grip, he replied, But I do remem­ber it very well, and he will, if called thereto, depose it in Mr Blagraves presence; and we can safely say of this man, that we believe he desires to get, and keep a good conscience.

We do foresee, that Mr Blagrave will be unsatisfied for our speaking so much.

Our answer is, that we are unsatisfied sometimes in our consciences, for speaking so little.

As to the article it self of Christs being a type,

We entreat the reader to observe the fulnesse of the evi­dence, deposing that the Dr said, that Christ was a type, and but a type. Now, we cease to wonder, that one of his choise ones should speak thus, to knowing persons, and reputed godly, who were on purpose speaking of Christs righteous­nesse, viz. I fear many make an idoll of Jesus Christ, as though trusting in the Lord Jesus crucified, without us, were idolatry. And another of his disciples, who speaking before of the present contest, concerning Christs righteousnesse, said thus, what need I to contend and wrangle about that which I my self am, which I have essentially in me. Nay the Dr him­self delivered this in the pulpit, long since his pretended con­verse with the Angels, and his visions of the eternall world, (viz.) whosoever did attain to a particular faith, these signs shall follow, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall lay hands on the sick, God will bring them to glory, and God the Father will deliver up to them the keyes of his everla­sting Godhead.

To conclude,

This never enough accursed doctrine of a typicall Christ, did spread like a gangrene in Calvins time; a little after in England, by Henry Nicholai, born in Amsterdam, an igno­rant man, but a crafty hypocrite, and one that had a kind of deceiving violence, in his smooth language of love: since that, in New-England, by Gortyn and his disciples; and [Page 45] then again in England very lately, Mr Rutherford who is good at surveys, and viewing, gives a most shrewd guesse, that the tokens of this soul-plague are to be seen upon the books of Mr Saltmarsh, &c: and now at this day this plague-mark is visible to every eye, and creeping about many hearts. Is it not a sad thing, that persons should take in such notions of Christ, that do altogether destroy Christ? that blaspheme his person, reproach his bloud, deny his pur­chase, and that make his infinite love and grace to poor sin­ners, to signifie just nothing? in which notions a man can­not be godly while he lives, and must be damned when he dies, for the rise, progresse, growth, and continuance of found godlinesse flowes from the right knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Do we not see these figure-makers, and makers of types, which God never made, which never came into his heart, what shadowy, empty creatures they are? the Socinians and Familists have nothing for the soul reall in this world, their light is darknesse, their sublimated notions froth, their words bubbles, their holinesse mere varnish, their austerity, Phari­saisme, their fasting and prayer (when they do it) a device to entrap souls, their publick demurenesse, private loosnesse, their comfort, a delusion.

What they shall have in the next world (in case of finall impenitence, which the Lord of mercy forbid) is reall in­deed, but what is it? but a sence of wrath, and guilt of sin, even against this now blasphemed Jesus Christ, a worm of conscience, a lake of fire, the gnawings of heart, which are really so grievous that no heart can think or guesse; and all this without remedy, without ease, even for ever and ever.

The eighth and ninth Articles of the first charge.

First, That Christ was not God.

Secondly, That Christ was not Jehovah.

Adde to these the fifth article of the last Charge. (viz.)

That one speaking to him of the glorious persons in Tri­nity: he replyed, persons in Trinity, there is no such thing, [Page 46] and again there is no such thing, as persons in Trinity.

The Drs answer to these are as followeth.

That Christ is not God, that Christ is not Jehovah.

I do acknowledge that such expressions were uttered by me, but I hope the bare expressions of suchH [...]bemus confitentem, It had bin far better said, such horrid di­abolicall blas­phemies, then such negations, this is very improper, and so mincing, what Christian heart can bear it? negations do not make me come within the guilt of the act, for it must be known what words preceeded such expressions and what followed, to say in preaching there is no God doth not make the preacher guilty of atheisme, if the words going before be but annexed (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God, so do but joyn these words with theWhat for­mer? you should have said with the latter, this is put in as a miserable wretched shift, say that such a blasphe­mer is an adulterer, yet joyn these words with it. (viz.) he goes a whoring after his own inventions, this is not culpable. former, Christ is not God the Father, Christ is not Jehovah, Jehovah taken strictly for the person of the Father, the first person of the glorious Trinity, I say add but these words and there is nothing blasphemous, or culpable in such expressions.

Though I do acknowledge that such expressions fell from me (viz.) that Christ is not God, that Christ is not Jehovah, yet I never avowed, or maintained such propositions, they were only uttered by way ofFalse, they were the points disputed on. dispute and that upon this occasion, Mr Daniel Blagrave then being chair-man of the Committee demanded of Mr Tickhill, what blasphemy was, he answered an evill speaking against God theUntruth, so thick a man may feel it, read the proof. Father,Who heard you reply so? neither the chairman, nor your brother, nor Mrs Pocock, a studied un­truth. I replyed a lame de­finition of blasphemy had Mr Tickhill said evill speaking against God, which is a word implying the Trinity in u­nity, there had been no occasion given of contest, for the ground of the expressions arose from the weaknesse of his definition of blasphemy, in that he said blasphemy was evill speaking against God the Father, to which I reply­ed, his definition of blasphemy doth not reach to that for which he accuseth me, for what he chargeth me with is [Page 47] notWhat is this but a delibe­rate consulting of a whole se­ries of un­truthes? blasphemy against God the Father, but against Christ God the Son, I have uttered no evill speaking a­gainst God the Son but seemingly to my accuser in say­ing that his imputative righteousnesse would prove a sap­lesse righteousnesse, to all those that had not the fiery deity in the center of their souls, burning up their lusts and corruptions. Mr Tickhill then replyed to that Committee, pray take notice that the Dr denyeth Christ to be God, which I prove out of John the 1.1.Who can make sense of this stuffe? the Dr wants a good memory, read the proof. To which I reply­ed Christ is not God the Father but God the Son, Christ is Jehovah, and so called the Lord our righteousnesse said Mr Tickhill, to which I replyed Christ is not Jehovah, if you take Jehovah for the personality of the Father, this is the truth as the whole Committee of Berks then pre­sent can testify, and I was then by their vote cleared of all the unworthy aspersions and dismissed, andUntruth, the business dismissed, but you were never discharged. since upon proof of witnesses dismissed, and that after a full hearing by the Committee of plundered Ministers.

I humbly conceive that if the former act did expressely adjudge and condemn evill speaking against Christ, yet my delivering such expressions in an ex tempore dispute, (viz.) that Christ was not God, or Jehovah, did not make me obnoxious to the guilt or penalty of that act, because pag. 980, and 981 they only shall be condem­ned as guilty who shall avowedly professe, maintain, or publish in words, or writing such and such execrable opi­nions, &c. Which I never did, nay I professe avowedly the contrary, and declare in the sincerity of my heart, that the thought never entred into my soul, to deny the God­head or deity of Christ, and I have avowed, maintained, and published by preaching that Christ is God, out of John the first and twelfth, The word was made flesh, from whence I did maintain, and publish that Christ was God coequall, coeternall, and coessentiall with the Fa­ther, contrary to all those blasphemous and execrable opi­nions which deny Christ to be God, so that now I hope the mere uttering of such expressions by way of dispute, before an understanding, and judicious Committee doth [Page 48] not make me a transgressour, according to the true sens [...] and meaning of this act.

Ans. 2. Concerning the persons in Trinity.

I do here professe, and avow from the sincerity of my heart, that I believe the Trinity of persons, as an article of my faith, viz. That there are three persons distinct from each other, the person of the Father, the person of the Son, the person of the holy Ghost; yet not so as to prejudice the unity in essence, and so I believe the unity, as not to confound the Trinity of persons.

ISee the first animadversi­on, where it is affirmed by a judicious and pious person, as upon oath, the Dr said, that God in Christ, and Christ in Saints, is the Trinity in u­nity and uni­ty in Trinity asserted from John 17. never uttered any such expressions in that way, as to give any just ground of suspicion of my denying the Trinity, But I remember about four years since before the Committee of Berks, Mr Fowler, or Mr Gilbert I re­member not which desired the Committe to give them li­berty to ask me two or three questions, amongst the rest they ask me whether there were three persons in the deity, I answered them, I believed the Trinity as it is recorded. 1 Joh. 5.7. There are three that bare record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost. Thus you see I believe the Trinity, but do you believe the Trinity of persons said they? I replyed I find not the word persons in the text, but to put you out of doubt, I do not stumble at the word person, and this afterward I told to the above mentioned Mr Grip in a private conference some yeares since, to whom I affirmed that I found no such expressi­ons as persons of Trinity, in the Scripture, and that the word person being a schole term wasAnd why dif­ficult, it being the most apt, plain significant term that is, persona denote [...] only sub­stantiam primam intelligentem, [...], any substantiam singularem, whether li­ving or dead; the fathers Greek and Latine agreed to use the word person, as signifi­ing an underst [...]nding subsistent. There is no term so safe, so full. Three properties, is very improper and dangerous. Three qualities, absurd and more dangerous. Three manifestations, Familisticall and hellish. Three persons, most suitable, specially when we adde infinite, divine, a person in all authours generally denoting a substance living, intelligent. very difficult, to [Page 49] be apprehended, by common capacities, but I never spake this to prejudice the true notion of the persons in the sacred Trinity, which I do cordially believe, but only to shew, that ordinary Christians should not be too curious, in pry­ing into the deep mystery of the three persons in the Trini­ty, but rather content themselves, with what the Scrip­ture plainly affirms of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, as distinct, and yet one. But to conclude this answer, pray consider what hard measure it is, thus to pick out a broken sentence out of a long discourse, and so to accuse one without relating the circumstance which might serve to clear, what otherwise may seem very strange to preju­diced persons.

The proofs of these Articles.

The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill of Abingdon.

This Deponent saith, that he heard the Dr deliver before the Committee of this County at Reding, that Christ was not God, and that he was not Jehovah, and being crosse ex­amined, he further saith, the Dr did endeavour in dispute with great seriousnesse to maintain, and defend as his judge­ment that Christ was not God, and that he was not Jehovah, and that there was no such expression of the Father menti­oned in his, this Deponents definition of blasphemy, as is mentioned in the Drs answer, but saith that his definition was, thatObserve the Deponents de­finition of blas­phemy, and judge whether the Dr did not study an un­truth. blasphemy was an evill speaking against God, derogating from his glory either in his name, nature, word or works, and that the Drs immediate words thereupon were,Let the magistrate hearken, ruling in the fear of the Lord, and let the reader hearken and be astonished at it, and grieve. what can be more wickedly asserted by the Dr, and more punctually proved by any Deponent? Hark! he answereth, blasphemy is an evill speaking against God, and in his paper chargeth me with blasphe­my against Christ;That (as if) is the breath [...] of the bottomlesse pit. as if Christ were God, hereupon we be­gan a hot dispute about the Godhead of Christ, the Depo­nent asked the Dr, if Christ were God, who did deny it, [Page 50] and put the Deponent upon proof of it, whereupon he cited that Scripture. John the first, In the beginning was the word, the word was God. To which the Dr replyed, he ishe is called God, so the Arrians, of the founder of whom Arrius, the godly Em­perour Con­stantine said, that he was [...]. Epiphan. lib. 2. Tom. 2. Haeres. 69. a wicked in­terpreter, the picture of the Divell. cal­led God, but he is not Jehovah, then the Deponent replyed, he is Jehovah, which the Dr likewise put him to prove, then he cited that Scripture, his name shall be called Jeho­vah our righteousnesse, Jer. 23.6. and (as he remem­bers) the Dr did disallow of that proof, as being out of the Old Testament, then the Deponent cited that Scripture. Rev. 1. He that was, is, and is to come, as being of the same purpose with Jehovah.

Thomas Trapham Esq one of the Committee sworn and examined, deposeth.

That to his remembrance, the word Father was not mentioned, in Mr Tickhills definition of blasphemy, and he saith, the Dr did then denyDid Dr Por­dage speak in the sincerity of his heart, (as he pretends in his answer to these articles, and others) that such a thought never entred into his soul? let the consciencious judge. Christ to be God, which he this Deponent acquainted Mr Blagrave with, to which Mr Blagrave said, if he deny Christ to be God, we must take a further course with him, then the Dr answered,Why was there not a course taken with him, when he denied Christ to be Jehovah? Christ is not Jehovah, and when Mr Tickhill had confuted him in that argument, then he said, he was not God the Father.

The aforesaid Susanna Grip.

This Deponent further saith, that the Dr came into her kitchin at another time, and as she thinks he then came from the Committee, and the Dr then said, whereas Ministers speak of persons in Trinity, there is no such thing, there are three that bear record in heaven, but there is no such thing as persons in Trinity, and the Deponent saith that these words were spoken by the Dr, about two or three years since, but whether the maid, or any body else, or who was then present, she doth not remember, and she further saith, [Page 51] that these expressions were delivered without any further explanation, as she remembers.

Witnesses examined in behalf of the Dr.

Mr Francis Pordage Minister of Stanford Dingley, and brother to the Dr sworn, and examined.

This Deponent saith that these words (viz.) that Christ was not God, and that Christ was not Jehovah, were de­livered before the Committee of Reding, in a hot dispute, and, that in the same words the Dr did expresse those words, that Christ was not God, with this limitation (viz.) that Christ was not God the Father, and that the dispute arose upon a definition of blasphemy which Mr Tickhill gave to Mr Blagrave, (viz.) that it was against God, to which the Dr replyed, he saith it is against God, and Observe this testimony from his own wit­nesse even the Drs brothr. he chargeth me for speaking against Christ, and that the Dr did then declare to Mr Blagrave, that Christ was God, but this Deponent doth acknowledge that there was so much distance of time, at least between the Drs denyall of Christ to be God, and his correcting of it afterwards, as required Mr Tickhill to prove him to be God, and to be Jehovah, and he further saith, he did not hear Mr Tickhill speak any thing of God theSee what a man this Dr then is, as upon premeditation to deliver in such an untruth, and since to print it, and to cry out upon the Commissioners as Pilates and persecutors. Father, in that dispute.

And this Deponent being asked by the Dr, whether fre­quently in that dispute, when the Dr spake of denying Christ to be God, he did not alwaies speak in relation to God the Father.

To this he answereth, his brother did say he spake it in re­lation to God the Father, but he cannot say frequently, or alwaies.

And he further saith, that the Dr did in a sermon in Laurence Church, clear himself concerning the Trinity of persons, and that Christ was God, and did assert it as his a­vowed [Page 52] judgement, and he further saith, the Dr did make his limitation concerning the deity of Christ, after Mr Tick­hill had cited many Scriptures, to prove the deity of Christ, and being asked by the Dr whether he understood him to be confuted, or mistaken, he saith mistaken.

The aforesaid Mary Pocock further deposeth.

That she was before the Commitee of Berkes, when she heard the Dr dispute with Mr Tickhill, concerning Christs being God, in which dispute she heard the Dr say, that Christ was not God the Father, but she did not hear him deny but that he was God the Son, neither then, nor any o­ther time, but owning him to be perfect God, and perfect man, and she further saith, that she heard the Dr expresse that sentence (that Christ was not God) with this limitati­on (viz.) that he was not God the Father.

And being asked by the Dr whether she did not hear him deny in that dispute, that he held Christ was not God. She answereth she did apprehend him so, so far as she was satisfied with it.

And being further asked by the Commissioners whe­ther in that dispute, she did not hear the Dr deny Christ to be God.

She answereth, she did hear him deny Christ to be God the Father.

And she being further asked whether the Dr did bring in that expression of God the Father, after many scriptures, cited by Mr Tickhill to prove Christ to be God.

She answereth Scriptures Mr Tickhill did bring but she is not able to say it was before the Dr did expresse God the Father.

And being further asked whether the words of God the Father were not spoken by the Dr after Mr Blagrave told him if he held such opinions, they must proceed against him.

To this she saith, Mr Blagrave put some questions to him, but what they were she cannot remember.

And now we come to the second charge of Articles ex­hibited [Page 53] against the Dr, which for brevity sake I shall not dissect particularly, but (being most to one purpose) set them down together, with his answer to them, and Deposi­tions thereupon, which are as followeth.

Articles against Dr Pordage, Parson of Bradfield.

1. Mrs Lewin of Hampsted Norris being with child, and near the time of travel, sent for Dr Por­dages mother to be her Midwife, but he would not suffer her to go, saying they would not be guilty of such a beast-like life, meaning Mrs Lewins being with child by her husband.

2. Dr Pordage coming to the house of Mr Lewin, in his discourse with Mrs Lewin, blamed her for having children by her husband, and argued with her of the unlawfulnesse of having children by her husband.

3. In his discourses with Mr Lewin concerning the same subject, indeavoured to maintain the unlawfulnesse of their having children, and said that Adam was made Male and Female in himself, and had he not fallen he had brought forth children himself: and seemed to maintain the same by scripture, and other wayes.

4. In his discourses with Mr Lewin which was about the time that one Everard was with him at his house at Brad­field, who was generally reputed to be a Con [...]urer▪ he asked Mr Lewin whether he would no [...] [...] afraid, if he should see his own picture or shape, intimating that he himself had used to see his.

The said Dr Pordage hath had for some weeks together in his house the same Everard, and one Tawney, who stiled himself King of the Jews, who had been qu [...]stioned (as is ge­nerally reported) for holding dangerous [...]nd unsound opi­nions, as that there is no hell, and the like.

My answer to the second articles exhibited against me, is as followeth.

As to the four first, I know not how or what positively and directly to answer to them, till I see them first, proved by oath, and that from such persons who are without just exceptions, after which I shall be capable to return a more full and compleat answer.

Neither do I see that seemingly to maintain and argue by way of dispute onely, the unlawfulnesse of Mrs Lewins having children by her husband, for the sifting forth of truth from errour, could it be proved that I did so, could argue or evince my ignorance and insufficiency for the mi­nistry; for this, though it were evinced to be my crime, cannot in justice and equity be referred to that head, but to scandal and heresy; except ignorance and insufficiency be resolved into the boundlesse liberty of the wills of the Judges, that what they judge and deem ignorant and in­sufficient, must be ignorant and insufficient, whether ig­norance and insufficiencie be really in such a subject or not.

That I gave entertainment to one Everard in my house, reputed a conjurer, and to one Tawney, who is reported to hold unsound opinions.

‘As to the first part, I confesse that one Everard about four years since, was received into my house at Bradfield, for the space of about three weeks and no longer, and that after this manner.False, he was there before of­tentimes. He came in harvest time, with a new pair of harvest gloves on his hands, to shew his willing­nesse and readinesse to work, and asked to speak with me, and told me, that if I pleased to imploy him in harvest work, he came to offer his service: hereupon I entertained him as a workman. And thus you see the manner of his coming, and the cause of his entertainment.’

Whereas it was said he was generally reputed a Conjurer.

I never heard the least intimation from any, that he was [Page 55] ever suspected to be a conjurer, till after his departure from my family; if he was a conjurer before, it was more then I knew, or had heard of: but after his departure, I confesse there arose a generall report up and down the countrey, that he was a Conjurer, but from that time to this I have never seen him, nor known what is become of him.

After his absence I do further affirm, that I feared and was strongly inclined to believe, that according to the ge­nerall rumour, he was a conjurer; hereupon I was in a great streight in my own spirit, whether I should prose­cute him or not: my zeal to Gods glory, and my obedi­ence to the commands of God, that saith,Not a word true, read the note upon his protestation. suffer not a witch to live, giving me some impulsions to do it, but after serious debate and consideration within my self? I resolved this case, or scruple of conscience thus, That my own per­swasions and jealousies, though they had some ground of probability, yet being not certain, afforded me not suffici­ent ground of prosecuting him as a conjurer, or of swearing positively he was such; now I leave it to your serious con­siderations whether this tendernesse of conscience, keeping me from prosecuting of him, or swearing against him, for fear of that heinous sin of perjury, makes me either igno­rant or insufficient for the ministry.

To the second part of the fifth article, which concernes my entertainment of Tawney, reputed as tis there expressed, to be one that holds unsound opinions.

I answer thus, It is well known that as I invite none, so I turn away none that come to visit me, be their principles in matter of doctrine, worship, and discipline, different from mine; I will briefly shew you my grounds and ends. My grounds are these, I look upon it as my duty, accor­ding to the Gospel of Christ, to entertain all strangers, that be in want and necessity, professing the name of Christ.

If enemies hunge [...], we are to feed them, if they are na­ked, we must cloath them, and as for strangers, we are to lodge and entertain them Heb. 13.2. As in the practise of this I break no law of God, so no law of man: and you [Page 56] may remember in the 37. article of Government, it is ex­pressed, That all such as professe faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgement from the doctrine, worship, and discipline, publickly held forth, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, nor to the actuall disturbance of the publick peace, shall be pro­tected, and then surely their hungry bellies may be fed, their bodies clothed, their persons lodged, and their wants supplied.

And further, my ends are these, which are pure and E­vangelicall, that I may prove all things, and hold fast that which is good, that I may t [...]y the spirits, because many false spirits are gone forth into the world. Now how are they to be proved and tried? not byWho saith they are? but they are to be suppressed: who calls the Mag strates weapons car­nall, but the carnall? carnall weapons, as by penalties, mulcts, imprisonments, and other externall punishments, but by convincing of them with sound do­ctrine, Christian discourse, and spirituall arguments, and by the example of a good conversation, and thus Gods glory, and the good of others, are my onely ends, in gi­ving entertainment to all strangers, that come in civilitie to visit me.

Now the cause of manyWe never heard of any but those men­tioned in the next animad. strangers coming to me as guests, from all quarters of this land, ariseth from those lying printed pamphlets, that have scarce a word of truth in them, these draw all seeking inquiring minds to visit me, for divers ends best known unto themselves. Let it be but proved that I have given entertainment to any com­monWhy did not you put in bla­sphemers, ran­ters, anti-lab­batarians, such as stay at home, and skim the pot, or ly in bed, and meet no where on the Lords day? swearers, to open drunkards, Sabbath-breakers, or to any known profane persons, and I shall judge my self obnoxious to your censure: but all that I give entertain­ment to, appear cloathed under some shew of godlinesse or other, but if they have not the power, it will be their own misery.

In a word, the strengh of this article doth but amount to thus much, that asMark the comparison, there is pride, and non sence in it. Christ was supposed and account­ed a friend of Publicanes and sinners, so am I reputed a friend to all people that professe Religion, and walk or­derly be their opinions in matter of doctrine or discipline, [Page 57] never so much differing from my own, or those commonly received. Yet this doth not argue my ignorance and in­sufficiency for the Ministry; but if in it any thing be cul­pable, it is to be referred to the head of scandall and heresy. But here being no law of prohibition, I cannot see any transgression in it against the law either of God or man.

But to conclude, these articles being matter of fact, till I see them proved, and each article in justice and equity referred to his own proper place, or head, either of scan­dall or heresy, I cannot give a more direct, or positive an­swer to them.

The proofs hereupon are,

John Lewin of Hampsted Norris Clark, sworn, and examined.

To theBe pleased to read and consi­der the follow­ing animad. first and second articles he cannot depose.

To the third he saith, that about three years since the Dr and he had some discourse about some principles of religion, the Dr did urge that place in Genesis, (that he made them male and female) but whether he meant Adam singly, or what mentall reservation he had, the Deponent knoweth not, and further to this article cannot depose.

To the fourth, he saith, that about the time mentioned in the article, the Deponent met the Dr in London, and in dis­course with him, the Dr asked the Deponent, if it would not be terrible to see apparitions, but did intimate nothing that he used to see any himself.

Anne the wife of the aforesaid John Lewin sworn, and examined.

To the first article, this Deponent can say nothing.

To the second, she saith, that the Dr told her when she had two children (a boy and a girle) she had enough, one for her husband, another for her self. To which the Depo­nent answered, (as it shall please God,) then the Dr repli­ed, piff, it is as your selves will, but saith that the Dr did ne­ver perswade her to live from her husband.

To the third article, she heard the Dr and her husband in discourse to the purport of that article, but what the words were, she cannot depose.

Animadver. 5.

We shall take the Drs answer as it lies in order.

First, As to Mr Lewin, he was the man who related the foresaid articles himself to two of the Commissioners,Mr Whet­whyck and Col. Arthur Evelyn, to whom telling them of the lewdnesse of these princi­ples, they both, viz. Mr Lewin and his wife, replied, we are ready to de­pose it, and did farther affirm to Gol. Evelyn, that they did hear the Dr assert the same things at ano­ther time. and that in terminis, of his own accord, and this with so much seeming willingnesse, that the gentlemen stand amazed at his fordid shrinking from, and denying of his own testimony, which he wrote with his own hand, and altered as he pleased. Besides, Mrs Lewin related the very same to Mr Wood­bridge, who did offer to attest it upon oath.

We do not wonder at this carriage of his at all, our won­der was, that Mr Lewin of all men should accuse the Dr; the proverb is, tis an unlucky bird, that defiles his own nest: the truth is, he thought if he should discover the Drs lewd­nesse, some of the Drs party might discover his own vile­nesse: he was loath to speak the truth, for fear he should be discovered, and now through a righteous providence he is like to be discovered, because he would not speak the truth.

He was afraid his crew would tell of him, and now some honest and understanding officers hearing of his basenesse, have detected him, take his character thus;

This Mr Lewin (we are unwilling to say Minister) of Hamsted Norris, was formerly a member of the army, where he lived in wickednesse to no small height, and that, First, against God, by cursing and swearing, and this (as was judged by some) he reckoned as a piece of his perfecti­on, in a ranting way: Secondly, against others, by pilfer­ing (to say no more) in a most fordid, unworthy manner: Thirdly, against himself, by sinning against his own body, (if he himself is to be believed) boasting of his wickednesse, he could not blush, nay he gloried in his lewdnesse, and pro­claimed his sin as Sodom under the pretence of a shaking or convulsion fit, he was taken in an unseemly wanton da [...]ance with a woman.

Being asked whence he came, in a profane way persona­ting the Devil, he answered, I came from compassing the earth to, and fro, seeking whom I may devoure.

From credible persons, of pious repute, we have this, sc. that he should speak to this purpose, I preach of faith, and am Orthodox in the countrey, but I do not mean so.

All this and much move, we have from persons of place and integrity in the Army, who are ready to testifie what they have said, out of their own willingnesse to the service of the gospel, and a desire to promote the good of souls; and in this businesse of shrinking in his evidence, Mr Whitwick and Col. Evelyn do intend to prosecute him, either as a slan­derer, or a false-swearer.

Obj. But is not this cruelty, even to fetch the bloud of mens names?

Ans. Our consciences bear us witnesse that we take no pleasure in it, we are compelled thereto, and partly by his own carriage: our apology shall only be that of Mr Calvin, for himself, in the same case, against the like persons, viz. Better it is that the names of men should rot above ground, then that the glory of our Lord Jesus should be trampled up­on, nay, in the least impaired.

Obj. Were it not better to be silent, are there not of Fa­milists many, and bloudy too?

Ans. We remember what Luther said, he should be contented to be accounted any thing, so he might not be found Modo non arguar reus maledicti si­lentii. guilty of a cursed silence, in the cause of Jesus Christ: as for danger with a little poor faith, through mercy we have learned to say, our times are in Gods hand; and to apply what the Lord Christ saith, a sparrow doth not fall to the earth, without my Father.

Secondly, Th [...]s Everard mentioned in the fifth article, was first a separatist, then a scoffer at ordinances, then a curser, then a blasphemer, then by report a conjurer as the Dr saith, but indeed rather an apparitioner, as the Dr is, then, mad and frantick, and committed by authority to Bridewell.

The Dr in his answer labours industriously to cheat his reader, by saying that this Everard came to him with a [Page 60] pair of harvest gloves upon his hands for work, as though he had not seen him before, when as for many weeks and for most daies in the week this Everard came to the Drs house before harvest began, and after he was gone, the Dr repor­ted that he was an honest godly man.

Thirdly, As for John Tawney the Dr exhibites a long answer of his feeding the hungry, and his pure ends in enter­taining strangers, &c.

Ans. May it please the reader to consider that this Taw­ney at first denyed the Scriptures, then cursed them, and lately within these five moneths burnt the Bible openly in Lambeth, wickedly calling the blessed Gospell of the Lord Christ, the grand Idol of England, that he pretended he had a revelation to destroy the Parliament, who hath since written a book as full of open blasphemy, and sly sedition, as a toad is full of poison, this man findes entertainment (as at other times) so about August last, for a fortnight toge­ther at the Drs house, and the Dr quotes for his defence in so doing, the thirty seventh article of the government viz. All such as professe faith in God by Jesus Christ. &c.

Consider, whether these men will stretch that article, it seems by this kind of men John Tawney himself, doth pro­fesse faith in God by Jesus Christ.

Ob. But what is this to the Dr? he is not of Tawneys way?

Ans. it was lately confessed to a person that will depose it, by one of the Drs own visioners one of his own way, and his own family. That, Dr Pordage, and John Tawney were both of one judgement.

Fourthly, the Dr answers, he entertains those that come to him under some shew of godlinesse or other.

Ans. We would not seem to carp, therefore we will not propose this question to him, how many shews of godlinesse there are, the sequele will resolve it.

We professe we do not know, neither can we learn of any that he hath entertained, but Abiezer Copp, notorious for blasphemy, and rantisme, in whose behalf this Dr appeared before the Committee at Reding; and being opposed by one [Page 61] of us, replied, (but with much meeknesse) that we should follow shortly after our dear brother Love. Or Coppin, to whose book that crawls with blasphemy, the Dr gave his approbation. Or John Tawney, or Everard, who set their mouths wide open against God and man: or Elizabeth Pool, or Goodwife Geffreys, who even stink above ground: we that live round about him, do not know any godly per­son but shuns him as a very monster: it is a frequent blind he puts upon his reader, by citing in his own behalf, and against the Commissioners, the godly party.

For our parts, we dare not say, that any Socinian or Fa­milist is, or (continuing such) ever can be a godly man, our reason is, because such deny the Deity, and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus, from the sound and feeling knowledge whereof, proceeds and streams out all reall and sound godli­nesse, a godly Familist, or Socinian, sounding in our ears even as great a contradiction, as a godly Turk.

God forbid that we should speak one pick against holi­nesse, better that our tongues should be dumb, then our mouthes utter, and our hands wither, then our pens should write one tittle to blemish it. We desire to look upon it as the most glorious thing in the world, and we would rather (if our own hearts do not deceive us) seek our bread, and the bread of our little ones, with holinesse in our hearts and lives, in a howling wildernesse, then to enjoy all the scepters of the world without it: yet give us leave to say (if it be but to ease our hearts) that it is a trouble to us, that Blasphe­mers, Antichristians, Anti-scripturists, should go up and down, under the precious name of men fearing God, by which artifice they harden themselves in their impieties, and infect souls with their blasphemies.

We do forethink that that expression of a godly Turk, will sound harsh, but we know not why it should,See Dr Calo­vius Socinis. proflig. p. 33. 34. Ignati­us calls the predecessours of the Familists and Socinians, the seducing serpent, or the Devil preaching to destruction.

The Fathers denied the Ebionites to be Christians.

The Samosatenians were accounted and called God-killers, God-deniers, [...]. (quantum in ipsis) quia divinam [Page 62] Christi naturam negabant, because they deniedEfficitur (prob dolor) ut Jesu Christi religio Turcis sit lu­dibrio. cap. 1. Johan. p. 7. explic. Christ to be God by nature.

Socinus himself saith, that the Protestants held opinions that made their religion ridiculous to the Turks, what were those opinions? why, in speciall this, that Christ is God: so then if we would deny the Deity of our Lord Christ, (as do the Familists and Socinians,) we were in a fair way not to be ridiculous to, but to agree with the Turks: again, thisHac ratione Turcas ad Ch. religionem al­lici posse, ibid. p. 2. Wretch tells us, that one reason of his writing against the figment (as he calls it) of Christs divine nature was, to make the Turks turn Christians; therefore by a parity of reason, they that do deny the Divine nature of Christ, in this point may quickly turn Turks.

Valent. Gentil. a blasphemer of Christs divinity, was notNon puduit eum subsidium petere ex Al­chorano Are­tius. Hist. Val. Gent. cap. 1. ashamed to seek arguments to help himself, out of the Turkish Alcoran.

AndAlciatus Ma­hometista sa­ctus est. idem. cap. 2. Alciate one of his complices, (as he confessed himself) was turned down-right Mahometan.

Calvin in his instruct. ad Lib. calls them rake-hells, dogs, swine, we fear that, in giving smooth language to villanous seducers of his kind, we use more manners then will do the gospel good.

Dr Twisse, a late learned, pious man, did call them A­theists, and he often said to one of us, that all gospel Athe­isme was against the Lord Jesus Christ: in a little measure we find it, amongst the Gnosticks and Arrians, and for some Centuries, their main spight and quarrel was against the Lord Jesus; after, for more Centuries, in the kingdome of the Papacy, where their damning errour, is in dividing, and so by consequence destroying both the efficacy of Christs grace, and the fulnesse and compleatnesse of his righteousnesse as to justification: upon the account of which last, some learned men (when zeal was in request) have said, That a Papist living and dying in the doctrine of the Councel of Trent, can never be saved; in this last Century the Libertines and Fanaticks in Germany, and the Netherlands, the Socinians in Poland, and the Familists in England, what do they main­ly do? but pour forth their venome against the Di­vinity, [Page 63] personality, and righteousnesse of the Lord Jesus.

To shut up all, the Court Drs in the late Kings time, be­gan much to vary their expressions, using such, in which they might have the company of the Socinians, as affecting to call Christ their Great master, sometimes, their Lord and master, that a man could hardly discern by their prayers, whether they respected most the Lord Jesus, or their very good Lord and Patron. God hath found many of them out, & cast them out; the desire of our hearts to God is, that Familisticall. Al­legorizing, Antichristian doctrines, may be shut out from thence, and all Pulpits of the land, that the name of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ may be magnified in us, and we in him.

And so we come to the remaining articles of the third and last charge.

The sixth article of the last charge.

That it was a weaknesse to be troubled for sin.

The Drs answer.

‘I do not remember that any such expression as this ever dropped from my mouth, and I am perswaded that no one dare assert it with an oath, which if they could not make much to their purpose, for with a charitable con­struction it might thus be made forth, That it is awretched, want of any re­all experience, for no man is so much troubled for his sin, and laments over it, and ab­horres himself, as he that hath the sense of Gods love, the more assurance, the more repen­tance. weak­nesse for one to be troubled for sin, who hath the assu­rance of Gods love, his sin pardoned, his person justified, sanctified, and his will converted from, and crucified to sin, for such a one should be triumphing in the power of faith, love, enjoying sweet heavenly communion with God, and saying, oh Death, where is thy sting? and there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Whereas trouble for sin thus pardoned, and mortified, may be an engine for Satan to make a soul question Gods love, and to bring it out of a spirituall enjoyment of God, into a sla­vish fear, and disturbance.’

The proof upon this article.

Note that Mrs Grip was the witnesse inten­ded for the proof of this article who did, and doth attest it, and will depose it.Mr Benjamin Woodbridge Minister of Newbery, and one of the Assistants to the Commissioners sworn, and exa­mined, deposeth.

That Mr William Twysse of Dorcester told this Depo­nent either that Dr Pordage did maintain it to him, or speak in company in his hearing, that he is no true Christian that could not commit the greatest sin and not be troubled for the same, or words to that effect to this Deponents best re­membrance.

The eighth Article

That he knew nothing to the contrary, but that a man might keep company with more then one woman, being taxed for keeping carnall company in London.

This witnesse also was not called. the Commissioners being abun­dantly satisfi­ed and tyred out, but upon the fight of the Drs book he hath witnessed it under his own hand, as you shall see.To which we may joyn another of the third charge. viz.

That Marriage was the way of beasts, as also that Francis Knight of Wallingford discoursing with some of Blewbery that use to Dr Pordages, they speak very much against the lawfullnesse of marriage, he wondring at it, asked them whence they now came, they answered we came just now from the Dr from Bradfield.

We shall likewise joyn in this place severall other arti­cles contained in the said third charge, preferred by some of the parish. viz.

That Dr Pordage about eight years past did carry Mrs Flavell behind him on horseback on the road to London, and about Hounslow did enquire for a private house, and was directed to one Goodman Loughton a smith, who lives in Hessen parish halfe a mile out of the road between Houn­slow and Branford: and when he came, asked if his friend behind him being sick might have entertainment: 'twas answered yes: then the Dr left her there; Mrs Flavell in [Page 65] in a short time fell in travell, but did never own being with child till she was in travell, and then desired no company might be called in, yet the good woman of the house, Goodman Loaders wife, called in three or four, and Mrs Flavell was then brought to bed of a daughter, having then no husband that the world knew of, Mr Flavell being dead.

Thirdly, That Dr Pordage came to that house and christned that child, and named it Hannah, and the Dr came often to visite her there, and alwayes alone by him­self.

Fourthly, That the child being put to nurse in the same parish, the Dr removed Mrs Flavell to Kensington, and paid the Smith for her being at his house. That a little while after, the nurse went to Kensington, to enquire for Mrs Flavell to pay her some mony, but she was removed, and the nurse saying she left a child with her, the company smi­led, and said they thought she was such a woman, after this the nurses husband wrote a letter to the Dr, to Bradfield, that he was twenty weeks pay behind and could not for­bear, whereupon he vvas paid, and shortly after sent for the child avvay from nurse.

Fifthly, That a little vvhile after, this Mrs Flavell came again to the Drs family, and a little child called Hannah, it vvas also brought thither, and Mrs Flavell took the care of it ever since, and Mrs Flavell being by neighbours asked vvhose child it was, said, a dear friend of hers, but none could ever hear in the house vvhose child it vvas, and some telling Mrs Flavell that the child vvas so like her, that they should take it to be hers, had she not said the contrary, she ansvvered, as before, it vvas a dear friends of hers, but never named vvhose.

Sixthly, That this child vvho vvas called Hannah, the last summer they changed her name and called her Ruth: they have also changed all their names, the Dr is called Fa­ther Abraham, his vvife is also called Deborah, and old goodvvife Pocock is called Rahab, and so the rest.

Seventhly, That Goodman Loughton's son being a soul­dier, [Page 66] savv Mrs Flavell in Bradfield street, and spake to her, but she took no notice of it, aftervvards Mrs Flavell coming to his fathers house, his mother in discourse asked vvhether she lived at Bradfield, Mrs Flavell said she knevv no such place; I vvill call my son in vvho savv you there: Mrs Flavell said people vvere given to lying, and vvould not have him called, and presently called for her horse and vvent avvay, and though before she had resolved to stay all night, and never since vvas there, except since the Dr hath bin questioned.

The Drs answers follow viz.

To the first.

I never kept scandalous company vvith any vvoman, in London, neither vvas I ever taxed for any such thing, except one by Mrs Grip, vvho I believe is the vvitnesse against me, and that upon this occasion,

At the time I had my former conference with her, the heat of passion being over, she told me I was also taxed for keeping carnall company with a woman in London, I replyed I am a man born to all manner of suffering, and told her she saw and knew the manner of my conver­sation, asking her whether she believed it, and she answe­red no truly, and then I solemnly protested the contrary, and this is all the taxing I ever had from any one, at which time, I was earnest with Mrs Grip to discover to me from whom she heard it, but she put me off, telling me she did not believe it, and that she would tell me some other time, but from that long discourse I had with her, fearing she was deeply tinctured with the principles of Antino­mianisme, and not knowing whether she might not be tainted with some notions of Rantisme, which at that time were every where frequently discoursed of, I took this occasion to try her, telling her (as near as I remem­ber) that there were some that affirmed, they knew no­thing to the contrary, but that a man might company with more then one woman, but to speak the truth she [Page 67] let it fall without seeming to approve of any such thing. This I solemnly a vow to be the truth, as near as I can re­member, and I believe Mrs Grip dare not swear that I mentioned any such th [...]ng, as my judgement, or produced one Scripture or argument to defend it, I professe to the whole world in the presence of that eye that seeth through all hearts, that all such loose principles which turn the grace of God into wantonnesse, and that run opposite to the lawes, morality, civility, modesty, and sobriety, or that any way indulge wantonnesse, and lasciviousnesse, are as inconsistent with my principles, as heaven and hell, light and darknesse, are opposite one to another, which will one day clearly appear to the world what ever I am now thought of.

To the second viz.

That marriage is the way of beasts, the Dr gives no par­ticular answer.

To that of Mr Knight.

That some of Blewbery that spake against marriage, said they came from my house.

I hope I have enough to do to answer for my self, what needs the assertions of others be alledged as articles a­gainst me, they spake against marriage, having lately been at my house, therefore I must be guilty of it, surely this consequence is neither according to naturall, artificiall, or divine reason.

The answer to the articles preferred against the Dr by some of the parish, followeth.

Now I come to the articles exhibited against me by some of Bradfield parish, and as to those which concern Mrs Flavell.

I shall answer. First, Somewhat in generall, touching their import and nature.

Secondly, By way of negation.

Thirdly, By way of acknowledgement.

‘This charge of articles hath no legall reference of charge at all to me, but is merely scandalous, importing but a libell, nothing of fact, really criminous, being laid to my charge, which will more clearly appear, When the errone­ous circumstances of it are detected, by which also the subtilty, and envy of my adversaries will be discovered, who positively alledge nothing against me, that may bear an action of damage at the Common Law, by which they might suffer for their injurious dealing, yet by plau­sible prevaricating circumstances would seem to make me highly criminous and guilty.’

Tis confessed that the parish Were deceived in the time, and some other circumstances, the Dr makes a great boast to no purpose, read the proof, and the note. Now I shall answer negatively, to many erroneous, preju­dicing circumstances, which are by design heaped together, to put a plausible face upon an envious libell, or illegall charge.

First, Its said it was some eight years since, I brought one Mrs Flavell to goodman Loughtons &c. which is an errour, though one of the smallest, brought in, to prejudice the more, for it was some nine years since.

Secondly, Its further said this was carrying her to Lon­don, which I deny, for it was coming from London, where she had for some time been.

Thirdly, That I asked whether my friend behind me, being sick, might have entertainment &c. This I also de­ny, she was not then sick, neither did I use any such ex­pressions.

Fourthly, That I never mentioned she was with child. Ans. Though I did not (it concerning me to do it) yet she herself did own it.

Fifthly, That in a shor time she fell in travell. Ans. A short time may seem to imply some few dayes, or weeks, being brought in as an aggravating circum­stance, whereas it was some four or five moneths after.

Sixthly, That she had no husband then as the world knew of. Ans. She owned then to the people where she [Page 69] was, and doth still that she had had a second husband, which some in theWhat world? not of this world that we know of, nor any one that we can learn by. world knew of very well, whose testi­monies she can and will produce, when she hath suffici­ent occasion offered, by a legall call thereto, who is also able and ready to give a sufficient accompt when occa­sion serves, of her not openly assuming her second hus­bands name, her estate then standing as it did, which ha­ving concealed for that time she was in Law, she thoughtO silly and poor shift! good ever since to be called by her first husbands name: but this subtle dealing of her adversaries, by libelling scandalls, without positively asserting she was not marri­ed, makes her incapable or recovering any dammage of those who nowWe never de­signed any thing but this. sc. if they do not produce the father Frewin. the Dr must be the father or the Pandar. enuiously, yet indirectly asperse her, which the Commissioners ought to take notice of, who should not receive such libells which tend to the blasting of ones credit and good name▪ which all sober Christians (ought for the Gospels sake) to value, and yet absolute­ly prove nothing of such criminous fact, which they de­sign seemingly to prove, nor yet give sufficient ground of calling them to an account, for such evill and malicious scandalls; but this not directly concerning me, I shall omit much which might be spoken of it.

Seventhly, That I came often to visit her. Ans. This is not true, it was rather seldome, being but three times in three quarters of a year, and that in Term time, upon ur­gent occasions at Law.

"Eighthly, That I removed her to Kensington. Ans. That is false, For I knew not when she removed thither.

Ninthly, That I paid the Smith, for her being at his house. Ans. This is another untruth, I never paid him a penny, neither did I ever agree with him for her being there.

Tenthly, That the nurses husband wrote a letter to me at Bradfield for mony for the childs nursing. Ans. This is a mere lye, for no such letter was writ, neither did I e­ver agree for to pay for the nursing of it, as the nurse and her husband can witnesse.

Eleventhly, That shortly after he sent for the child [Page 70] away, this I also deny, it containing two untruths in it: for first, the child was not shortly after sent for away, nei­ther did I send for it at all, for it was fot away by the mo­ther her self.

Twelfthly, That a little while after, the said little one was brought into my family. Answer, this is also false.

Thirteenthly, As to the seventh article of this libelling charge, in which many circumstances are produced to scandall the gentlewoman, as though she had told a great untruth it deserves no other answer but this, that it is compacted of many lies, nothing being there true, that really tends to prejudice her, as I believe will appear by the event.

Thus, in this short relation, wherein there is some truth, pray take notice how many untruthes, and mere lyes are mixed with it to put a beautifull face upon an envious and unchristian design, and is not this to bear false wit­nesse against ones neighbour? may not any ones inno­cency and integrity, be in this manner undeservedly clow­ded, aspersed, and wounded, which I leave to the serious considerations of the Judges.

As to my affirmative answer, what I acknowledge is this.

‘About nine years since, I brought behind me from London the fore-mentioned Mrs Flavell, who had been of ancient and near acquaintance with me, and my fami­ly: to one Goodman Loughtons, a Smith in Hessen, where, some four or five months after, she was brought to bed of a daughter, which she owned to the people where she then was, to be by a second husband, even as she still acknowledgeth, and further that I visited her three times in the space of three quarters of a year, at term time, be­ing then ingaged in a Law suit, that concerned her that one of these times I christned her child, and called it Han­nah, that afterwards her occasions requiring not so much [Page 71] privacy, she came to live with her ancient acquaintance at my house, where also for some years her daughter hath been with her.’

Now to take away any thing that may seem to reflect upon me in this my acknowledgement, pray consider these subsequent particulars.

1. ‘That I and Mr Pordage, being of very near and long acquaintance with her, it was but a friends courtesie for me upon her desire, to carry her to this house behind me. That she had sufficient ground to retire into some such place in the countrey, in that the city air was offen­sive to her health.’

2. ‘In that by the counsell of able Lawyers she was advised to retire to some private place; she being then in law, ingagements, and continually subject to arrests, by the intanglements of her first husbands estate: her bro­ther in law, who was her adversary, then threatning to seize on her if she were above ground.’

3. ‘In reference to my ingagement in her law businesse, I think it materiall, briefly to relate the grounds, and oc­casions of it in the time of her widowhood: her brother in law began a suit with her in the Common law, which, fearing he should be there overthrown, he removed to the Chancery. Now she being very unfit, and uncapable to mannage this her self, she earnestly desired me as an ancient and trusty friend, to undertake it. Upon this, I went to Judge Roles, and Mr Chuts with her, who look­ing into her evidences, and into the will of her late decea­sed husband, found that for want of one clause in it, she was liable to many suits and arrests, and to great intangle­ments, and that her interest could not be established, but by much difficulty, and at length this was the result of the Counsell. That she must let all her estate which was un­der morgage, be forfeited into the hand of some faithfull friend, and so sell it away. Hence, I, through much impor­tunity, layed down some hundred pounds, rescued the mor­gage, and so became interested in a suit at Chancery, which [Page 72] lasted three years. Now, from this may further appear sufficient ground. First, why I brought her to that private house. Secondly, why I came to her in the time of her re­tirement, I then received mony from her to follow her suite. Thirdly, why I came alone, it being then her interest to be concealed, being subject to arrests.’

I shall proceed to adde some few circumstances more, which may serve to clear me before all sober persons.

First, At my coming I told the people my name, and that I dwelt atCould not you have sa­ved all this pains by one certificate, where her hus­hand lived, and died? had not you four monethes time, before your sentence? Reding, that I was minister of St Law­rence Church, knowing the gentlewoman to be sober and pious, now, had I been, as my enemies enviously pretend, I might have concealed my name, quality, and place of residence.

We discovered to them, that the gentlewoman had an estate in the bulwork at London, and rents there to receive, which they might enquire after, (as they did for their security) now this was not the way to cover a work of darknesse.

Thirdly, She sometime went to London to the Lawyers, whilst she vvas there, some belonging to that family ac­companing her, vvho found, that as she had related she vvas in great troubles at Lavv, and vvere convinced that she retired on that accompt.

Now in reference to most of those particulars, in which I have contradicted and denied the alledged circumstan­ces, and further vindicated my self, they are exactly a­greeing with what I have in writing confessed and ac­knowledged, by Loughton himself, from whom this charge is pretended to be received, and by the nurse of the child, subscribed by them both before witnesses, which acknowledgement I shall produce, when I see occasion.

And by this I hope it may appear, to moderate, sober, and judicious men, that this libelling charge, drawn up so falsly, enviously, and yet so subtily,It was called upon as soon as known. calling from the dead a businesse past some nine or ten years since since, (which though it were criminous) as it is not) were le­gally [Page 73] to prejudice by the Act of oblivion, or generall par­don, as all other things pretended to be spoken or acted by me before 1651. according to the judgement of judicious men, which I leave to the Commissioners to consider of; I say, that this is but the effect of the evil and wicked po­licy of my accuser, brought forth to prejudice and over­cloud that pure and innocent principle which I professe, and faithfully live to; and the better to cover that evil de­sign they have against my person, and livelyhood.

And now I appeal to the Commissioners, and to all that are pious, and sober minded, whether my enemies do not deal very unreasonably, enviously, and unlike Christi­ans, from this businesse so long since past, which nothing criminous, is positively objected against me, to draw such horrid conclusions, as commonly to report, that I now live in base lust and wantonnesse: notwithstanding my com­mending of, and owning the virgin life, I say, whether this be not exceeding hard measure, and ungodly dealing, let all judge But I see that design of the Devil in it, which mine enemies may be ignorant of, which is, to overcloud, and darken by monstrous lies, and scandalls, which are the smoke of the bottomlesse pit, thatWe desire the reader (if he please to take the pains,) to consider the a­nimad. upon his virgin life, with these that follow, in an­swer to his pre­tended holi­nesse, and swel­ling words of vanity. life of purity, chastity, mortification, self deniall, and heavenly enjoyments, which God hath favoured me to live in; and so to affright all from my acquaintance, which otherwise might very much prejudice, and overthrow his kingdome. For the old ser­pent knows very well, as also my near friends and acquain­tance, that for above these four years, even since the time of my great trialls, by the extraordinary temptati­ons and representations of the devil, that I have been ab­stracted more then ordinary, from all outward things, gi­ving my self up wholly to prayer, watchfulnesse, mortifi­cation, and constant self deniall; in dying to all earthly pleasures, even to things permitted, and accounted lawfull, as finding many things which ordinarily imbraced, to be great hinderances of the souls progresse to God, and great burthens to a spirit which tasted much of that tree of life, which groweth in the midst of the Paradice of God, and [Page 74] great cloys to a soul that sees through the vail of the sensi­tive nature, into the spirituall glory of eternity. But what I have enjoyed and experimented in this time of my extra­ordinary mortification, and self deniall, in the death of the animall man, and rising of Christs image in me, is not seasonable now to declare; yet, for the glory of my God, and the undeceiving of those who strangely mistake me: Thus much in all humility I must say, that did my accu­sers and my enemies know, what I have enjoyed in this way of the crosse, of the secret hidden treasure of eternity, and of the out-goings of divine goodnesse, were they but acquainted with those discoveries of celestiall glory, instil­lations of the heavenly dew, and secret touches of the holy Ghost, did they but know those bright irradiations of eternall light, those strong motions of divine life, and pleasant streams of eternall love, together with those deep sufferings, in bearing Christs crosse, which I and ma­ny in my family, have in this time experienced, they durst not thus condemn and judge me as an evil doer, and one that lives in the lusts of the flesh; but my God hath taught me whilst they curse, to pray for them, whilst they design to ruine me, to love them, and whilst they hate me, to say with Christ, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.

This I thought fit, in all humility, to annex to that li­belling charge, concerning Mrs Flavell: from which I have undeservedly suffered so much, by the malice of the devil, and now I shall proceed to answer the remaining articles, one of which is intermixed with the former seven that concern Mrs Flavell, which is this:

That we have changed our names.

‘Tis well known that weIt is false, for Mary Po­cock subscribes her name thus, Your friend, formerly called Mary Pocock, and before the Commissioners, she did alwayes subscribe her name with an R. though she is able to write legibly. the R. standing for Rahab. own and subscribe our names in our civile converse with the world, as this and my for­mer answers testifie. I shall therefore wait to see whether [Page 75] any one dare swear to this article, and though we did in our own private family call one another by scripture names, yet I conceive it did not concern the civile Magi­strate to take cognizance of such a thing, it being not pra­ctised to make any disturbance or confusion in the State,’

The proofs of the aforesaid articles.

The aforesaid Susanna Grip,

This Deponent further saith, that she told the Dr, she heard it was reported, he should keep company with a wo­man in London, and asked him if it were true. To which the Dr answering, asked her, who informed her so, the De­ponent replyed, she would tell him; whereupon the Dr smi­led at it, and was not troubled, but denied it, saying no. But he made her a further answer, that he did allow of such things, as she understood him, but what his expresse words then were, she cannot remember.

And the Drs answer to the said article being read unto her, she saith, she doth not remember any such passages, as are therein mentioned, viz. that he should say I am a man born to all manner of suffering, and that the Deponent knew his life and conversation, but she doth confesse she did then reply, that she did not believe any such thing of him, and being crosse examined, she further saith, that (as she re­members) the Dr did speak that passage, (of allowing that they may have more then one woman) as his own judge­ment, and not as another mans; and this was spoken in the Deponents own Court, (no body else being then pre­sent) about three or four years since.

Roger Loughton of Heston in the County of Middle­sex Locksmith, sworn, and examined.

This Deponent saith, that about nine yeares since or up­wards, Dr Pordage brought to this Deponents house Mrs Flavell behind him, under the name of Mrs Frewin, and that both the Dr and the said Mrs Flavell did ask for entertain­ment for her, and that they did ask what they should give for her board, and her son Stephens, and that they did bar­gain [Page 76] for eight shillings a week, and then he carried her a­way and she came not till after Christmas, and how she then came, whether in a cart, with her trunck and cloaths, or otherwise, he knoweth not: but the Dr did not then come with her, and after she had been there a while, the Depo­nents wife conceived she was with child, which she denied, saying it was a timpany, and that she remained there till be­tween Easter and Whitsuntide, when and where she was brought to bed of a daughter, and she did not desire any store of company to come to her labour, though the Depo­nents wife did desire it; and after she had been a short time delivered, the Dr came, and baptized the childe in the De­ponents chamber, and named it Hannah, and after that the Dr called the Deponent aside into his orchard, and prayed him to find out a private place, two or three miles from the Deponents house, where Mrs Flavell might go now and then to see her child.

The Deponent answered, it would be inconvenient, be­cause it was a time of souldiers, and the corn way high, and thereupon he did not look out as the Dr desired. And he further saith, that when the Nurse did bring the childe oft­times to see the said Mrs Flavell, she would not permit her son Stephen to call itShe was a­fraid of the proverb, viz. children and fools tell truth. sister, saying it is not my child, Ste­phen, it is Nurses. Afterwards the said Mrs Flavell depart­ed from the Deponents house, to Kensington, where she re­mained about a moneth, and that the Deponent having oc­casion to go to London, called at Kensington by the way, to speak with her, but she was gone from thene, whereupon the Deponent told that her child was not well, and then two gentlewomen of the house told the Deponent, that she had denyed to them that she had any other child but her son Ste­phen. And the Deponent further saith, that the Dr came to his house three or four times in Term time, and that both the Dr and the said Mrs Flavell did inform the Deponent, that she was marrird to one Mr Frewin, a Minister, about six weeks, but she was a widow, as both of them said, when they came to the Deponents house.

Elizabeth Benwell maid-servant to Mr Ellis of Shin­field, formerly servant to the Dr, sworn and examined, de­poseth,

That Mrs Flavell did usually lye in the Drs bed-cham­ber, during the time the Deponent was servant there, which was about a year and a quarter.

The aforesaid George Aslet.

This Deponent further saith, that about a moneth since, Good wife Knap told him that she being at the Drs house, Mrs Flavell was very angry with her, and threatned to have her whipt for saying the child Hannah was Mrs Flavells child, and that she then denyed she had any other child, ex­cept Stephen her son, and that when the said Goodwife Knap denyed she had said any such thing, and began to be outragious, the old and young Mrs Pordage desired her to be pacified, saying, happily it might be another woman should say so.

Animad. 6.

Let the reader observe, that to that article, that marri­age is the way of beasts, the Dr gives no particular answer, and good reason, for to affirm it before the face of the coun­try, had been very monstrous, and to deny it, had been notorious.

In the businesse of Mrs Flavells child Hannah, we desire the reader to observe, First, That the Dr in his answer to this article would call the child by no sirname at all, but only Hannah, and being demanded by the Commissioners to tell them Hannah what? what besides Hannah, even to the derision and wonder of all standers by, he would by no means give in any particular answer but Hannah, and I will say nothing but Hannah, and Hannah what you will, ob­serve that the Dr should carry away the mother with child to a private place, and after baptize the child, and take mother and child back again into his ovvn family, for [Page 78] some years, and yet not know the sirname seems to us in­credible.

But what should the man say, it must have been called by him either Hannah Frewin, or Hannah Flavell, or Han­nah Pordage, or some other Hannah: the first, Hannah Frewin had been to make the child daughter of a man, that for ought yet appears never was in the world, for the se­cond, Hannah Flavell had been to make her the child of a father dead two or three years before she was born; for the last, Hannah Pordage if it were true, (as it is very possible) yet it was not safe as yet, as yet the times will not blaze it, there is a pure word wrested to a ranting sense viz. All things are lawfull, but not expedient.

Secondly, Consider that in open Court, Mrs Flavell ap­pearing and being demanded by thee Register what her name was, answered Mary Flavell, and being demanded the second time, gave the same answer, Mary Flavell, and being minded by the Register that surely she did forget her self, her name was Mary Frewin, she answered, Mary Fla­vell, or Mary Frewin which you please.

Thirdly, The child was often denied by her to be her child, and commonly taken for her neece, till it was disco­vered by Roger Loughton, at whose house the child was born, the timpany proving to be a daughter, whose testi­mony is uery considerable. the man being rationall, dis­creet, refusing all occasions of being tempted, for before his testimony was given in, the Dr with all his women sent for him to an Inne in Hounslow, but he refused, the next day be­ing Tuesday they came to his house at Heston, but he was gone to Branford, whether the Dr and his company went and inquired for his shop, where they found him, and would needs perswade him to go with them to the tavern to drink a pint of wine, he replyed, he had no body to look to his shop, the Dr told him he would give a boy sixpence to look to his shop in the mean time, he answered no, he was about his businesse, if they had any thing to say to him he would give them an answer there right, he thinks if he would have been so base as to have been tampered into silence, he might [Page 79] have had a round some of mony, This was to­ward the end of the last har­vest. the discovery is observable for these two providences in it.

First, The manner which was this, a plain country man of Bradfield went to Heston to see his brother living there, with whom, on the Lords day, he went to Haworth to hear the sermon, where also was this Roger Loughton, a frequent hearer there, after the evening exercise there were two chil­dren baptized, and all being finished by a providence, the country man of Bradfield, and his brother, and Roger Loughton, met and went home together, going in the way the country man began to discourse, and said to his brother, I have seen more to day then I have seen these two years, I have seen a child baptized, our Dr will not baptize, Roger Loughton not knowing who the man was, nor where he li­ved, asked his country, and his Drs name, the man told him Dr Pordage, at a place called Bradfield in Berks, Loughton smiled and questioned the man about Mrs Flavell, and how many children she had, the man replyed one, a boy named Stephen, and being asked whether she had not a daughter, was answered by the country man, no, never a child that we know of but only her boy Stephen, R. Loughton said, yes, she hath, and I knew when the Dr would baptize, for she was brought to bed at my house of a daughter, and the Dr came and baptized it himself, and called it Hannah.

Secondly, The second providence is the time when, and that was about a moneth before the Commissioners were authorized by the Ordinance; therefore whereas the Dr saith we rake in the grave of the dead, we reply the scan­dall was prosecuted as soon as it vvas discovered, there vvas not tvvo moneths respite betvveen the one and the other.

The rest of the articles contained in this third charge, be­ing most of them concerning the Drs visions, both of the Dr and the rest of his family, and others of his followers, and of their strange and unheard of apparitions, revelations, trances and raptures, converse with Angels both good andAll principles and practises, tending to Ran­tisme, Diabo­lisme, Sorcery, and seducing of others. bad, shall not be here particularly distinguished, but for brevity sake put together as they were exhibited together [Page 80] with his answers thereunto, and the proofs together after­wards as followeth.

That he hath very frequent and familiar converse with Angels.

First, That a great Dragon came into his chamber, with a tail of eight yards long, four great teeth, and did spit fire at him, and that he contended with the Dragon.

Secondly, That his own Angel came and stood by him while he was expostulating with the Dragon, and that his Angel came in his own shape and fashion, the same cloathes, band and cuffs, the same banstrings, and that his Angel stood by him, and upheld him.

Thirdly, that Mrs Pordage and Mrs Flavell had their Angels standing by them also, Mrs Pordage singing sweetly, and keeping time upon her breast, and that her cbil­dren saw the spirits coming into the house, and said, Look there Father, and that the spirits did often come into the chamber, and drew the curtains when they were in bed.

Fourthly, That the said Mr Pordage confessed that a strong inchantment was upon him, and that the Divel did appear to him in the shape of Everard, and in the shap [...] of a fiery Dragon, and the whole roof of the house was ful of spirits.

Fifthly, That Mrs Margeret Pender acquainted wit [...] the doctrine of spirits, and pretended to be converted by visi­ons of Angels, and whose confession followeth, doth thin [...] that she was bewitched by them of Bradfield.

Her confession to Mr Fowler who penned it from her own mouth before witnesse.

She was taken ill upon Wednesday in the afternoon in July 1653. about nine a clock the same night, there ap­peared [Page 81] unto her the vision of a man standing at her beds feet, on Thursday the next day he had a book in his hand, and stood by her all that day and said nothing, on Fryday it spake, saying to her, why art thou so discomforted, she answered, a wounded conscience who can bear, he replyed,Observe how the Divell will speak Gospell for his own bloudy ends. he that hath wounded thee will make the whole, then she spake much of her own unworthinesse, he replyed there was worth in Christ, and he had paid a ransome for her, then he told her that that book in his hand was the book of the Lamb, and that her name was written in it, she saw the book, a broad book with a parchment cover, she saw wri­ting in it, and then was sheBeware of false joy. lifted up with a great deal of joy.

About four a clock the same Fryday. the dark Angel came and stood by the other vision, with a knife in his hand, and said thou hast had a great deal of joy, and offering her the knife, bid her dispatch her self, and she should enter into that eternall rest her soul so much thirsted after, upon this she trembled, the bed shook, and her Mrs held her.

The same Fryday, she had visions presented upon the wall, she saw the world, and the resurrection of the dead, and the son of man appearing in the cloudes of heaven.

She saw clearly the vision of a friend of hers, of London, in her chamber at Southcott, her friend was much inclined to this way, she much wondred at it, and told Mrs Pordage of it, who answered her, alas so do we, we see abundance of those we never knew before, when once they come into our way.

On Saturday Dr Pordage came to her being sent for, and prayed in a very strange language, she did not very well un­derstand what he said, she heard him say, Lord, but nothing of Jesus Christ, but the abysse. and the bottomlesse eternity.

She heard a great noise of drums and trumpets, she ask­ed the Dr what the ratling of the drums and trumpets meant, he answered her, it was an alarme to the spi­rituall warr.

One of the nights she saw a vision of young Mr Daniel Blagrave, which came to her beds side, she took him by [Page 82] the hand, and it felt cold, she asked the Dr what it meant, he answered her that the coldnesse of the hand, did signifie his beginning to be cold to vanity.

She asked Dr Pordage what the visions meant she saw upon the wall, he answered that they durst not reveal one anothers visions, he did not question, but God would discover himself, and reveal wonderfull things to her.

She was from Wednesday noon till Munday noon, and did not eat one peice of bread, but some times drank a lit­tle water and sugar, and she saith she was not sick at all af­ter the first two houres, and when she was about to eat, she had a voice came to her viz,The Divell will do more then some Quakers, for he will quote the Scripture, but it is as some of them do, o deceive. we are not to live upon bread, but upon every word of God, and upon that voice she did not eat.

She saith that she hath oftentimes seen at London flashes of light in her chamber, and at last heard a voice which put her into a very great fear and sweat, saying to her, thou hast married a lump of clay, but thou must return to thy first husband, which is thy Saviour, thou must go to Joppa: And upon this she was convinced that these visions were of the Divell, because the voice was clean contrary to the Scriptures. she saith that she hath heard it reported atAt Mr D. Brs where she then lived. Southcott, that ere long Dr Pordage should have power from on high to bestow saving graces on whom he pleased.

That Dr Pordage preached that water baptisme was not the ordinance of Jesus Christ.

That about Michaelmas in the year 1653 he was commanded by his Angel or from Heaven, to give off prea­ching and take no tithes, but since he conceives he hath had a dispensation.

That in July last 1654 he was to be taken up into hea­ven, and it is said by some, he hath been there, and dismis­sed again about his businesse.

That he cursed the people of Bradfield in the pulpit, and their posterity for euer, in this world, and in the world to come.

That he faith goodwife Pocock singeth the highest [Page 83] hymnes very sweetly, that she knoweth not a word when she begins, but is taken with a burning about her heart, and when she hath done she cannot repeat a word, if it were to gain the world.

That goodwife Pocock lately came to Collonell Evelyn, saying she had a word to him from God. viz. have nothing to do with that just man.

The testimony of Richard Seyward. September the 9. 1650.

I came into Bradfield Parsonage in the evening, and there I heard a very mournfull cry, as if it had been one in extreme paines, but who it was I knew not, but it continu­ed all the time that I was at the door, which was well near a quarter of an hour, and so it continued when I went away, and then the tenth day in the morning I came unto Mr Francis Pordage at the parsonage of Stanford Dingley, and he enquired of me what I did think of the noise that I heard, I told him I could not tell, then he related to me, the Lord was about a great work in this kingdom, and to this nati­on, and the cause of this cry was one in travell, and the pains were so extreme, that if I had stayed there but a little longer, I might have heard it as far as the town, but now she was delivered of a man-child, and the travell was at an end, and that he and others were eye witnesses of it.

That in Dr Pordages house in Bradfield, the new Jeru­salem hath been seen, to come down from heaven, all of precious stones, and in the new Jerusalem there was a globe, which globe was eternity, and in the eternity were all the Saints.

That at the said Drs house, the face of God hath been seen, not as Moses saw him, but the very face, as one man may see anothers.

That one being in the said Drs house in a trance, the said Drs daughter being by her, said that she saw two An­gels all in white, with crowns over her head.

That he might say any thing to the men of the world.

I answer, to the best of my remembrance, I neverFalse, read the animad­version on his protestation. utte­red any such unchristian maxime, much lesse ever held it as my judgement, and I confidently believe, there is no one in the earth that dare witnesse it, with an oath.

I know very well that Mr Fowler hath been, if not the authour, yet the reporter of my holding this monstrous tenet, for he hath confidently averred, and often insinua­ted into some of the gentry of this County, and into his own proselites, that I am aLet the rea­der judge whether he is a Familist or net. Familist, and it is my prin­ciple to say, or unsay any thing that may make to my own advantage, which God knowes is a sad scandall, and a monstrous untruth, and clearly appears to those who know the integrity of my principles & conversation, to be a blur cast upon me, from the contrivance of subtle machi­villian policy, to prejudice all I say or answer to those horrid things objected against me, for if this be once set­led in those who are my judges, it is vain for me to answer, deny, or avow any thing. But the Lord forgive my ad­versary, for this his unchristian dealing, and grant he may repent of it, before he comes to give up his last accompt, before the great Tribunall of Christ.

That he hath frequent and familiar converse with Angels.

‘As this article is presented in generall terms, without expressing whether the Communion be visible or invisible, I do not see how it can touch me, though my enemies were my Judges, because every true christian hath frequent Communion or converse with Angels, as you may see, solidly and clearly proved from Scripture by the Lord Lawrence, one very learned and pious, now President of the Lord Protectours counsell, in his book intituled, one communion and war with Angels.’

Concerning the vision of a Dragon, and the apparition of spirits.

I may deny these four articles, as they are taken together and expressed in those terms, and in that manner, in which they are set down in my accusation, for I believe none dare swear the measures, or teeth of the Dragon, with the appearances of my own Angel &c. without incurring the crime of perjury.

I will not confesse any apparitions in particular, till they be proved, least I should seem to accuse my self, they be­ing brought in as a crime against me, and as instruments to condemn me.

Yet in generall I acknowledge, that some four years since there were many strange and wonderfull apparitions in my house: But what can these in justice amount to, though attested by oath, and confessed particularly by my self, when brought before those who professe themselves christians, and acquainted with the historie of the holy Scriptures; pray was not Job a pious, sincere, and emi­nently righteous man, yet how was he scared with dreams, and terrified through visions. Chap. 7. ver. 14. Did not Zachariah the Prophet. Chap. 3. see Satan standing at the right hand of Joshua to resist him. Did not John Rev. 12. in a vision behold a great red Dragon, that made war against Michael and the holy Angels? and was not Christ himself tempted of the Divell, by voice and visi­ons. Mat. 4. ver. 6.8. Now the servant is not greater then the Lord. Joh. 15.20. and therefore not exempt­ed from the like attempts of the Divell? I beseech you consider whether this earth be not the place where the Di­vell walks up and down, seeking whom he may devour: how then can Bradfield or any other place, he exempted from his appearing when God permits, and may not all this be for the manifesting of his glory, goodnesse, and power? and who can tell whose family may be next ex­posed, by Gods permission to be tryed and proved by the representations of Satan, and I desire you seriously to con­sider, [Page 86] how any such apparitions raised by the Divell, and permitted by God, for his own glory, argue me either ig­norant, scandalous, or insufficient, surely it rather argues, that he hath blest me with a strong faith in that he permit­ted such great tryalls, and made me instrumentall to over­come them, by prayer and fasting: if it can be proved that I ever so much as looked toward the unlawfull art of black magick, or that any evill spirits were raised up, by any compact of mine, explicite or implicite, or that these evill apparitions, were subdued and overcome by any other means, then by Gods blessing upon our fasting and pray­ers, I shall judge my self worthy of punishment.

But otherwise it is hard measure to be prosecuted, for the malice of the devil towards me, inflicting what I was passive in, and could not help, especially by those who professe the Christian religion, and know that the God of heaven ruler over all, permitting and disposing of what­ever comes to passe.

That Mrs Margaret Pendar doth think she was be­witched by them of Bradfield.

Here is a long and tedious relation, in which truth andHer confession is true in every particular. untruth are mixed together: the whole structure of which relation, so farre as it concernes me, depends on this weak basis and foundation, That she thinks she was bewitched by them of Bradfield.

But what a sad thing is this for my accuser, to impeach me for that which might endanger (if true,) my estate and life, upon the thoughts of a discomposed maid; be­cause she thinks I sent those visions, therefore I must be thus arraigned: but for my part, I do not believe she dares say so, much lesse, swear it, having no grounds at all for it.

I shall briefly relate some circumstances, which con­cern this businesse, and may serve something to clear it up. Before these visions of hers, I had ne­ver seen her as I know of, nor exchanged so much as a word with her. In the time of her visions [Page 87] Mr Daniel Blagrave, whose servant then she was, came for me himself, to fetch me to his house to visit her: to which motion I yielded, being sutable to the law of Christian charity, and when I came, I had no conference with her, but in the presence of Mr and Mrs Blagrave, with others that were then present: and from this visit, there arose a rumour that I was a conjurer, and a sorcerer, which report was spread abroad by two, that carry the name of Ministers of Christ, Mr Fowler, and Mr Ford: the last of which so exceeded the bounds of charity, and Christian moderation, as in his sermon at the Assizes, to call me a horrid blasphemer, asserting that the Devil was as visibly familiar in my family, as my own servants, and so excited Magistrates to persecute me.

As for thoseWhat one un­truth? declare it if you can, Mrs Pendar confessed all this freely, and it was written from her own mouth before witnesse. This answer of yours is an over-grown untruth. untruths which are mixed in the relation, I shall not trouble my self to answer them, for I know when they come to be sworn to, and to be crosse exami­ned, they will appear to be but the fulling of that wicked Maxime, Calumniare audacter aliquid haerebit. Calum­niate boldly, something will stick; which being a piece of Jesuiticall policy, hath been practised by my accu­ser, in this confused Rapsody of Articles.

That my chamber hath been filled with spirits.

‘I hope none will be so unadvised as to swear to this article, being spirits are immateriall, andSilly non­sence, for he do [...]h c [...]nfesse in print p. 73. that the Dragon al­most fill [...]d a la [...]ge room. cannot take up place, or fill a room.’

That I preached that water Baptisme was not the Ordinance of God.

‘It was never soSee Franc. Knights testi­mony under his hand. preached by me, all that then I affir­med was this, that water Baptisme could not be proved to be the Ordinance of Christ, by way of eminency, so called from that text of scripture, Mat. 28.19. Go teach all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; for the Baptisme may very well be under­stood of the Baptisme of the spirit, which by the disciples was instrumentally administred to all converts: yet I deny [Page 88] not water baptisme to be a gospel Ordinance, instituted by John, as the chief instrument under God, from whom he received his Commission, and that this was the summe of what I then preached, I can prove by oath.’

That about 1653. I was commanded by my Angel, or from Heaven to give off preaching, and to take no more Tithes, but that since I have had a dispensation.

‘I believe no one that hath the fear of God before his eyes, dare attest this article by oath, as it is here stated, this is answer enough to such a thing, which is merely brought in as an odium by my accuser, the more to preju­dice me.’

That in July 1654 I was taken up into Heaven, &c.

‘If Paul were now upon the earth, he were in danger to be accused by my accuser, for his rapture into Heaven, or Paradice, but this concerning me will prove but some idle dream, created by some bodies fancy, to make people won­der at me.’

That I cursed the people of Bradfield in my Pulpit, and their posterity for ever, &c.

‘This article was one of those heard and examined, four years since, by the Committee of plundred Ministers, from which I was acquitted by them, these witnesses, viz. Richard Luington, John Hambleton, Mary Pocoek, Richard Holmes, with four more attested by oath, that I did not curse the people of Bradfield, for as it was expres­sed in the article, the testimony of these witnesses was this: That they being present September the 29. the Dr ex­pressed himself thus, Bradfield is a place, partly made fa­mous, partly infamous, by reason of the false and lying re­ports that are abroad. But I say, cursed be the tongue, and the mouth that shall say, that what is done by the power of God, is done by the power of the devil, what one Pari­shioner is here cursed by me, except any ones conscienc ac­cuseth him, of the guilt of that forementioned blasphemy.’

Concerning Goodwife Pocock singing Hymnes and spirituall songs.

‘She acknowledgeth it as her gift, bestowed by God, being according to the gifts of Christians, in the Primitive time, but this doth not directly concern me.’

Concerning the same persons coming to Col. Eveling, and saying she had a word from God, viz. have nothing to do with that just man.

‘She owneth these words, and looks upon me as a just man, and aNo denier of Christ is a Christian, much lesse, a true one. true Christian, and believeth that Col. Eve­ling will one day know, she gave good counsell upon good grounds.’

Touching Seywards depositions, of the birth of a child, and one being in travell.

This was one of the former articles, of which I was ac­quitted by the forementioned Committee.

Mrs Elizabeth Pordage, and Mary Pocock, asserting on oath, that there was no woman in travel, nor any child born, nor any other cry heard, but of those at prayer; which was also witnessed on oath, by Mrs Frances Pordage.

That in my house the new Jerusalem hath been seen to come down from Heaven, and that in it was a Globe, which Globe was Eternity, and in that Eternity all the Saints.

‘As to the substance of this article, if God have favour­ed any with such a vision, surely they would be no more ashamed to own it, when called to it, then John was to write Rev. 21.1. That he saw the holy city, new Jerusa­lem, come down from God out of Heaven, where he also describes it, by all the most precious stones in the creation, but in reference to my family, I believe none dare attest they heard this spoken by any of them, which I believe will prove someIt is now-confessed by himself in print p. 77. and Su­san Day saith, she saw it with her eyes. See her testimony. groundlesse imagination.’

That in my house God hath been seen face to face, &c.

‘As this article is stated, I shall give no other answer but this, who dares swear to it? or what proof can be brought of it?’

The proofs of the aforesaid articles are as follow.

Concerning the converse with Angels, or rather Devils, [...]ombating with the Dragon, and the visions of Mrs Pendar.

Mr Christopher Fowler further sworn, and examined, deposeth.

That about Michaelmas last, the Deponent speaking with Mr This Gentle­man was sum­moned to ap­pear, but did not. Daniel Blagrave the elder, concerning the visions of Angels, that were in his house, in reference to Mrs Pen­dar. The Deponent told him, the said Mr Blagrave he did believe he was able to say much to the purpose, it being in his house, and desired him thereupon to speak his knowledge of the truth, both in point of conscience, and in point of repu­tation, he being censured for supporting such a man as Dr Pordage. The said Mr Blagrave answered, Why the Dr doth converse with Angels, and I believe when he comes before the Commissioners, he will not deny but he doth con­verse with Angels. To which the Deponent, replied, if he doth confesse them Angels, we will prove them Devils. And he further saith, that he hath credibly heard something tending to this purpose, that Dr Pordage hath seen theTo the que­stion of the white vision, the Dr would not answer at any hand. vi­sion of the said Mr Blagrave somewhat a white vision.

And he further saith, that the entrance of his discourse with Mr Blagrave, was in reference to the visions that were seen by the bodily eyes, and mentioned the visions of Mrs Pendar, that were by her reported to be such; upon this he understood Mr Blagrave that the purport of his answer was a visible converse with Angels.

This Deponent further saith, that in conference with Mr Daniel Blagrave the younger, he asked him if he could not speak to the Drs converse with Angels, he answered (as far [Page 91] as the Deponent remembers) he could speak much.

And the Deponent further saith, that Mrs Pendar being asked by him, did acknowledge (on Thursday last at Lon­don) that at Mr Blagraves house at Southcott, she heard a great noise of drums, and trumpets, which Dr Pordage (who was sent for to her) told her was the alarum to the spiritu­all warre. And that one night she saw the vision of young Mr Daniel Blagrave come to her bed side, and she took him by the hand, which hand felt cold, which Dr Pordage expounded to her thus, That the coldnesse of his hand signi­fied that he began to be cold to vanity, and that she asked the Dr what the visions meant upon the wall, and he reply­ed, Mrs, we do not use to reveal one anothers visions.

The aforesaid Susanna Grip.

This Deponent further saith that the Dr told her that a great many spirits hovered about his window, and kept a noise, and that he told the company, there could come in but one at a time, and that a great dragon did come in with a long tail, and great eyes, and vangs, and did spit fire at him, and that his own Angel stood by him, in his own shape, in the same clothes, band and cuffs, and did protect him: and that the Dr likewise told her that Mrs Flavell and Mrs Pordage had their Angels likewise standing by them; and that he overcame the Dragon, and that his Children saw the spirits, and said, look there father, (they being not a­fraid after they had fasted and prayed,) and he further said, that the spirits did afterwards come into their chamber, and drew the curtaines, and lookt on them, but they would not take notice of them.

She further saith, that the Dr told her the spirits came a­bout three dayes after they had fasted and prayed, and did flash open the curtaines, and look in upon them.

The aforesaid John Grip.

This Deponent further saith, that he was at Mr Blagraves house, when Mrs Pendar saw the visions mentioned in her confession, and that the said Mrs Pendar said, she saw a man [Page 92] in white, (as she thought) with the Lambs book: and the said man told her, that her name was written in the book, and that she heard a watch going, and that there appeared another in the likenesse of a black man, with a knife, which he offered to her. And the Deponent further saith, that at another time, at his house, the said Mrs Pendar did inform him, that Dr Pordage had said he had power to bestow the gifts and graces of the spirit, upon whom he pleased.

At other times he saith, he hath had often conference with Mr Blagrave, and at one time above the rest, walking over the fields towards Southcot, we fell into discourse concerning Dr Pordage, and the said Mr Blagrave did then tell him, that the Dr did go about to perswade him to leave off all imployment, and to sell his estate, and to retire to his house, for his house was the ark, as Noahs ark was, to receive all those that must be saued; this was sometimes this last sum­mer, and that Mr Blagrave did seem very much to slight it, and asked the Deponent what he thought he should have got by it, had the Dr prevailed. To which the Deponent replied, that he thought the Dr had a grand design in it, for Mr Blagrave being accounted one of the wisest men in the countrey, if the Dr had prevailed to have drawn him away, he might likewise have drawn away most of the countrey, and then he would have set up himself like Mahomet.

The Deponent further saith, that Mr Daniel Blagrave the younger told him, when the spirit came upon the Dr, he would leap over pales of a great height, about five foot and half high, as the Deponent could conceive by his relation, and this was told him within twelve moneths last past.

Susanna Grip, daughter of the said John Grip, aged 21 yeares, sworn, and examined.

This Deponent saith, that about three or four years since in the Deponents mothers kitchin, she heard Dr Pordage say, that a great Dragon came into his chamber, and that he expostulated and contended with it, and that the Dragon did spit fire at him, and that his own Angel did appear to [Page 93] him in the shape of a man, with his band, and his clothes, and bandstrings, and did support him, whilst he contended with the Dragon. And the Deponent further saith, that she heard the Dr say, that the spirits did come into his chamber, and drew the curtaines, and lookt upon them; and that the Dr likewise said, they were affrighted at first, but afterwards when they were used to it, they were not. And she saith, that she heard severall other things to this purpose, which now she cannot remember to depose.

And this Deponent being crosse examined, further saith, That he declared, that the Angel which appeared with the band and bandstrings, &c. was the Drs own Angel, and not the Angel of another, to the best of her remembrance.

The aforesaid Elizabeth Benwell, further deposeth,

That she saw something like a starre, in the red chamber in the Drs house, by the beds leg, it was light, and somewhat like a starre, but she cannot say it was a starre yet it was in the night, and no other light in the room, to the best of her remembrance.

She further saith,This Deponent was formerly servant there. she hath heard musick at severall times in the Drs house, when she did not know that any Instru­ments, or Musicians were in the house; and that she heard it in the kitchin, and in her Mrs closet, and did app [...]ehend the same to be near her, but did see none playing.

The Dr being asked, doth confesse before the Commis­sioners, that he hath seen many dreadfull apparitions of De­vils at his house, and that his family did see them, and that a great Dragon did come into his house, with a long tayl, and great teeth, but he doth deny that he said his Angel did protect him. He further saith, that about four yeares since he had apparitions both of good and bad Angels, for three weeks together, at his own house, but from that time to this they have ceased inHe hath still visions, but not apparitions, he hath the same object still, Angels and Devils, (it appears by his words) but not in the same manner. He hath had (to use Mr Bl. words, who best knows his words and meaning) visible converse with Angels formerly, that is, apparitions, and he hath them still, but not in the same manner. Now they be visions, his inward sen­ses (as he doth phrase it) are open. that manner.

He doth also deny that ever any Angel appeared in his clothes, band and cuffes, as also that his Angel did never ap­pear to him in his life, in any visible shape.

He further saith, that he never saw Mrs Flavels, nor Mrs Pordages Angels standing by them; but it doth not there­fore follow but that they might stand by them: and being asked, whether he did not relate the same to Mrs Grip, he answereth, heThis answer is like Mary Pococks oath, see animadver. the first. can neither affirm nor deny it, for he doth not remember whether he did or no.

He further saith he cannot affirm nor deny, that he related to Mrs Grip, that his children saw the spirits, and cried, look there father. But he saith, he doth positively deny that he related, that the spirits did come into his chamber, andAnd yet he doth grant in his book p. 72. about the last line, that a spi­rit did on a sudden draw his bed cur­tains, about the middle of the night, this per­jury is like the other, supra. draw the curtains when they were in bed, and will prove the de­position that shall affirm it, to be perjury.

He further saith, that he hath daily converse with Angels, & that he hath heard it credibly reported that he hath every day two angels dressing of him, & that they who reported it to him, said, they had it from the mouthes of two Ministers.

The aforesaid Mr John Tickhill,

This Deponent further saith, that a summons being issued for the appearance of Susanna Day, The messenger went for her, and met with her on Tuesday night last, being the fifth instant, at this Deponents house, and that she was wil­ling to come, but could not in regard of present distemper, but the said Susanna (having reported to severall people in Abingdon and in particular, to this Deponents wife, that she was at Dr Pordages house, and that the people there told her, her eyes were opened, and she saw at that that time, the new Jerusalem come down from Heaven, all of precious stones, and so on according as in the article,) the said Susan­na told the Deponent on the said Tuesday night, that the last time she was at the Drs house, she saw the new Jerusalem come down from Heaven, a city four square, with borders of precious stones, and she being asked whether it was not her fancy only, she answered, she saw it really.

The Deponent further saith, that he asked the said Susan­na whether she saw any Angels in the Drs house, to which [Page 95] she answered no. But she said the Drs daughter did see two Angels holding a crown over her the said Susanna's head.

On the Drs behalfe.

Mrs Elizabeth Blagrave wife of Daniel Blagrave of Southcott Esq sworn and examined, deposeth,

That she never heard Mrs Pendar say she was bewitched by those of Bradfield, but she said Mrs Pendar And did not the Dr say so too, and did not some more say so likewise, and speak high of it, and piffe at low dispensations, but she hath since confessed that they were from the Divell, and gives her reason because the vision did contradict the Scripture, viz. tending to this, that she must leave her husbands. told the Deponent that her visions were from God, and that she had never spoke with the Dr in her life.

This Deponent further saith, that Mrs Pendar told her she had been at Mr Fowler his house, and that Mr Fowler examined her touching her visions, and the Deponent asked her what she said, to which she replyed, she was sure she had said nothing to him that could hurt the Dr. Thereupon the Deponent askt her if she had told Mr Fowler that the Dr did send those visions, to which she answered, she could not say the Dr did send them, for a world.

She further saith, that Mr Pendar told her that his wife said (when she came to London) sheThen (it seems) she did say it to him at Reding, nay, she did confesse it to him again the second time at London af­ter the Drs try­all begun would not say what she had said to Mr Fowler if it were to do again, for she perceived it was a snare or trap.

She further saith, she was by when the question concer­ning young Mr Blagraves hand was put, and she askt it her self some in the room, and the answer was that the coldnesse of his hand as far as they knew signified his dy­ing to vanity which was delivered in a jesting manner, which answer was not delivered by the Dr, and the Depo­nent saith the Dr never gave such an answer in his life as she knowes.

This Deponent further faith that she heard a muttering that Mr Grip should say that the Dr had perswaded Mr Blagrave to leave all and come and live with him, where­upon the Deponent askt Mr Blagrave about five or six weeks since concerning it, and the said Mr Blagrave an­swered [Page 96] to the Deponent that he did not remember that the Dr ever said any such thing to him.

Lastly, this Deponent saith she never knew any thing of the Drs judgement, neither did he ever bring her into any judgement, and that she never had any discourse with the Dr till she did first begin with him, and that if ever he had confirmed her in any thing it was in nothing disagreable to the word of God.

Concerning the man child mentioned in Seywards testimony.

Mr Francis Pordage Brother to the Dr, and Minister of Stanford Dingley, sworn, &c.

This Deponent saith, that it was one Mrs Flavell, that in the aforesaid testimony is mentioned to be in travell of the child, and he further saith, that about four years since Mrs Flavell was very earnest in prayer on a day when they were fasting which was at the time when one Seyward came to the door, and that the said Seyward knocking, the Depo­nent went down to the door to him.

This Deponent doth further acknowledge, that the said Seyward came to him about the time mentioned in his said testimony to the parsonage of Stanford, and that it is proba­ble he did ask the said Seyward what he did think of the noise he heard at the Drs house the day before, and that (the said Seyward answering he could not tell) it is probable the Deponent did relate unto him that the Lord was doing a great work in this kingdom, and to this nation; and doth confesse that unadvisedly he told him that the cause of the aforesaid cry was one in travell, but he doth not remember that he spake any such thing as that (the pains were so ex­treme, as that had he stayed longer he might have heard it as far as the town) but he doth confesse, he said, she was in travell of a man-child, and that he and many others were eye witnesses of it.

And the Deponent being asked who it was that was in travell, he answered Mrs Flavell.

And he being further asked what became of this man­child, he answereth it was theHow could they be eye wit­nesses (as but two lines above he saith they were) of such a man child as this? birth, death, and resur­rection of Christ in the nature of Mrs Flavell.

And he being further askt how the birth, death, and re­surrection of Jesus Christ in the nature of Mrs Flavell, was so great a work that God was doing to this nation, heAnd yet but even now he said it was probable he did say so not above ten lines be­fore. answereth he never said any such thing.

He further saith, that this travell of a man-child was not any naturall birth of a child out of the womb, But the cry that was then made was nothing else but the groaning and intercession of the spirit in her prayer.

Note that these witnesses following were not examined, because the Commissioners were satisfied. Francis Knight an understanding christian, thought himself bound to wit­nesse for the truth.

These are to certify that (I having discourse with some of Blewbery, who then came from Dr Pordages house, and are reputed of his way, concerning marriage) they affirmed with much heat that marriage was not lawfull, but a defile­ment.

Secondly, that the Dr told me that he thought there was a legion of Divells in his chamber.

Thirdly, I affirm that the Dr preached at Bradfield, that water baptisme was not the ordinance of Jesus Christ, and I going to him afterwards, and telling him, I was not so re­solved, he replyed, whosoever looked upon water-baptisme any otherwise then as an Ordinance from John did not look upon it aright, and I do offer my self to maintain that if the Dr deny it, he hath a face of brasse.

Francis Knight.

As for his cursing the people of Bradfield, take this de­position before the Justices of the Peace.

William Wickins sworn and examined, saith, that Dr Pordage did deliver in his sermon upon the 29 of Sept. that accursed were the people of Bradfield, and their posterity, and to you I speak, so may you be accursed and your posteri­ty in this world and in the world to come.

Animad, 7.

The Dr pretends to, and now hath printed h [...]gh visions, and so high, that even by himself they are likened to the visions of Paul, and John in the Revelation, so far are they above the raptures and trances of John Becold, Matthias, and the rest in Germany.

He hath seen the world of Divells, evill spirits innume­rable, their order and government, he hath heard, felt, ta­sted, and smelt hell, in salt, sulphur, & that by amagicall tin­cturation, as his phrase is.

He hath seen the world of Angells, and of them without number, bright as the rayes, sparkling like diamonds, he hath tasted, and heard the dews of paradise, and h [...]rmonious mu­sick, his inward senses were opened to see the kingdom of glory, and there he saith he is, for his spirituall senses were never shut, nor shall be unlesse he return back into the earth­ly nature. pag. 77.

He saith this was given to him as an extraordinary favour from God, and this he speaks in high langu [...]ge, and swelling words, and now he hath a command from God to publish it, some persons are, and many more are like (specially if the Quakers proceed in every corner of the Land to make the people Antiscripturists, which is the great design of the Divell, for the Bible makes him a Quaker) we say many are like to cry up these visions, and cry out upon the ordi­nances of the Lord Christ.

The question is concerning their proceedure, whence are they: whether from God or from the Divell? we shall confesse with all willingnesse that if they be from God, vi­sions of the Lord, they are very admirable and extraordinary (as he calls them) besides the ordinary dispensations of God to his hidden ones, and let it be proved by the Dr or any of his in the world that they are such, we shall willing­ly confesse our selves to be persecuters, plunderers, theeves, lyons▪ (as he saith) and we trust we shall not be ashamed to give God the glory.

But if they be from hell, and diabolicall, then we say, the God of heaven did scarce ever permit Satan to act a cheat upon fallen man beyond this delusion of the Dr, we do not know (but it may be our ignorance we heartily confesse) any feigned storie of visions that come neer these, the 74, 75, 76, 77 pages of his book do exceed all of the Mahu­metans, Papists, Familists, old or new, & we cannot but look upon them. First, as tremendous judgements from God upon men, who are most righteously punished with believing lies, because they receive not the truth in the love of it. Se­condly, as wise providences for the tryall of others, of the chri­stian magistrate for the probation of his courage, zeal, and love to truth, and of the private christian for the tryall of his faith, that those that are approved may be made manifest. Thirdly, As a call from heaven to every one of us to keep close to Scriptures to labour for a sound scripturall know­ledge of the Lord Jesus, to love the truth for the truths sake, and to practise it for Christs sake, from his love, and for his glory.

The reader hath seen his blasphemies, we shall now de­sire his favour to consider and judge, what his apparitions, revelations, visions are, and what his mortification is, which was alwaies the pretence of cheates and deceivers; John of Leyden did much presse the people to mortification, and to a converse with God, the precious title of holynesse is assu­med by the Popes, even those that were conjurers, whore­mongers, dealers with the Divell, we shall speak of these in order.

First, Of Angelicall Apparitions.

We desire to bring them to the scriptures the only ba­lance, and lapis lydius, that so we may try them by the weights and touch of the word: let no man say this is a low dispensation, if they do, yet their hard words are occasional­ly our advantage; the more these times vilifie, the more we desire to magnifie the scripture; the wickednesse of these dayes, by a kind of antiperistasis, intending the small heat [Page 100] of our affections toward them; the history of the word is a ground for a divine faith, because the authority is divine; humane authours we do, we can believe, but humanely.

First, They were very rare, to a very few men, and those eminent, and extraordinary ones, as to Abraham, Jacob, Daniel, &c. we believe from Adam to Moses, and from him to Christ, and from Christ to this day, we cannot find thirty persons upon authentick records that have had appa­ritions of Angels, not one Saint amongst many thousands.

Secondly, To those they did appear, they appeared sel­dome, most of these few, had they had apparitions of Angels but once lesse, they had had none at all.

Thirdly, They made no tarriance with them, to whom they did appear: we believe, take all the appearances from the creation to this day, and compute the time, it will not in all make up one naturall day, take them all together, not 24 houres.

Fourthly, Very few of them did appear, upon their ap­pearances; not above two or three at most, but most com­monly but one: and when the scripture speaks of Angels plurally, it names their number, as two to Lot, three to Abraham, two to the sepulchre of Christ, unlesse it be to Ja­cob, in Gen. 32.2. and to Elisha, 2 Kings 6. and to the shepheards, Luke 2.

Fifthly, Their appearance was upon some extraordinary businesse, which may be reduced to these four heads.

1. Either of tidings and message, as of a son, and such a son as Isaac to Abraham, and Sarah, when the one was an hundred yeares old, and the other ninety: so to childlesse Manoah, concerning the birth of Sampson: to Zachary, concerning John the Baptist: and to the V. Mary, and the shepheards, to foretell to Mary, and declare to the shep­heards, the birth of Jesus Christ, and to declare to the wo­men, his resurrection.

2. Angels have appeared for comfort, so to Jacob when he was afraid of Esau, to Joshua at the siege of Jericho, to Gideon against the Midianites, to Daniel in the captivity, to the Lord Jesus Christ in his agony.

[Page 101]3. They have appeared for deliverance, as to Lot, out of Sodom, when God purposed to rain brimstone, to Peter in prison, when his chains fell off, Acts. 12.

4. They have appeared for direction, so to Cornelius, to bid him send for a Minister, Peter.

Some of these apparitions were not of created Angels, but of the Angel of the covenant, the Lord Christ; as that of Jo­shua, and Gideon, as appears by the context; besides these the scripture records very few. Austins rule was, non credo, quia non lego, I believe nothing, but what I read in the Bible.

Sixthly, Many of these few angelicall apparitions were before there was any scripture, or written word, or if after, then, when the prophets were very few, as to Manoah, or in the captivity, as to Daniel, or before the publication of the Gospel.

Yet behold, here is a man that in the mid-day of the go­spel, under the compleatnesse of the word, who tells us of the apparition of blessed angels to him and his, more for number, and longer for continuance, then all the saints of God from the beginning of the world to this day ever had; nay longer, by at least 20 times, for he enjoyed these appa­ritions for 21 dayes together, and is in the way of visions still, he hath had visions for these five years: and yet the man no way (as we understand) extraordinary. We professe we know him not otherwise then very mean; if he be in any way more then ordinary, it is in his magicall, grosse igno­rance, his doctrines of filthinesse and blasphemy, his foolish pretence of holinesse, his faculty of saying, and unsaying. Let no man say we rail, we hope we know, that what we speak is upon record in heaven, both what and how, and likewise to what end we speak; we think it is enough to un­loose the tongue of the dumb, (as it was said of him in the Historian) to see such swords) even bitter words) to be drawn, and their point to be set to the very heart of religion, and all Godlinesse.

To see the Jewels of glory taken out of the crow of Jesus Christ, by wicked hands, and now the Angels must be [Page 102] pretended by their apparitions, to become vouchers. Oh dreadfull!

Then secondly, what extraordinary service did God send them about? When we consider the man what he is, for lear­ning, very slender, for parts, very mean, as poor as a beggars patcht coat, for religion, rottennesse, for his doctrine, a bla­sphemer of the Lord Christ, and a high reproacher of his pre­cious bloud, for his way, tending to filthinesse, for his tempta­tions, fallacy and cousenage: we cannot imagine what busi­nesse the glorified Angels should have in his chamber for three weeks together.

Give us leave to debate the businesse a little with this Dr, tis possible that by that means truth may appear, and give some light to the reader.

1. Dr, Of which world was that angel that appeared to you, in your clothes, band and bandstrings? was not this directly proved against you? and how fumblingly did you answer? this very thing was spoken by the Deponent, long be­fore the Commissioners were in being; why do not you own that apparition now, in which formerly you gloried? what, did an angel of glory come into your chamber, and put on your clothes, band and strings, and cuffes? Mrs Pordages and Mrs Flavels angels standing by them was clearly de­posed; Mrs Bla. angel in her morning coat Mr Bromly could not deny, Mr D. B. angel, somewhat a bright angel, is credibly reported, Dr, were all these angels of glory?

2. Of what world are those angels that come frequent­ly to one of your proselites, and stand at her beds side? they neither do any thing, nor speak any thing, do the Angels come from Heaven on such sleevelesse errands?

3. Of what world was that angel that appeared to her in Dr Pordages shape, band, and cuffes, just as he used to be when he was going into the pulpit, and this apparition more then once: tell us is it an angel of light, or a fiend of hell?

4. Tell us of what world, (for you have the key to open misteries, to use some of his own words) was that apparition that came to your aforesaid poor, seduced, be-pitied prose­lite, that came to her upon a white horse, and told her that [Page 103] he was Christ, (oh dreadfull! our hearts and hands even tremble) and that she was his bride, and that he was come to fetch her away to heaven.

5. Of what order was that apparition of a starre, or somewhat like it, in your chamber at Bradfield, that your maid saw, and deposed it? was it from heaven, or not? you do not so much as offer a word of answer in your book.

6. Of what world were those angels, that at severall times gave your maids a pleasant fit of musick in the kitchin when they were washing of their dishes? this one of them de­posed, that she heard it often, when there was no musician, nor instrument of musick, and she saw none playing, and the Dr could not except against her evidence, could not reply to it, nay, hath not said a word to it in his printed book since.

7. Of what world, from heaven, or hell, were those An­gels that made musick for you Dr, with Jewes-harps, and drums, and which you your self heard in your house? are such vain and poor employments suitable to the nature of glorified Angels.

8. Of what world were those Angels that carried Mrs Brown (the Abbesse of your virgin number) into heaven? (we cannot think she went thither of her self) where she saith, she saw the Trinity, and danced before the Trinity, and being asked, what dance? she answered the just man, Oh dreadfull!

9. Dr, Of what world was that angel that counselled you, and the compiler of your book, not to print the appa­rition of the heavenly angels to you? there is not a word of their apparition to you, in all the book that we can find, your term there p. 73. is, Ministration; was not the devil afraid if that were printed, the whole plot would be disco­vered? he and you thought, that no rationall Christian would believe that those angels did appear in your chamber, much lesse three weeks together, which you confessed again and again, to the Commissioners: what equivocating, jug­ling tricks are these?

Secondly, As to his Revelations.

Revelations properly are either propheticall, of things future, eorum quae Deus vult de nobis, as the revelation of John, or else doctrinall, eorum quae vult à nobis, as the revelation of Paul, He received the gospel by revelation. and what God would have us be­lieve and practise.

Now Dr, for your doctrines, we can find nothing in your raptures, but the doctrine of virginity, which you offer to prove, but come off most ignorantly, which doctrine tends to destroy the bond of marriage, and so to introduce a more then heathenish community.

As for your prophesies, we confesse there is a great report now among your defiled ones, of great prophesies, and won­ders; it hath been said by one of your choise ones lately, that whosoever comes to be Parson of Bradfield, will find that Miracles are not ceased yet.

There are only two that we have heard of, that look that way.

First, That in July last 1654 you even you Dr should be taken up into heaven with a white staffe in your hand, and should come down again, and become a great man, this was related from your mouth by one of your best friends, and therefore unlike to bely you, to two persons that desire to fear God, who also will, if called, attest it, what evidence would some men have? would they have his Arthingtons and Coppingers proclaim it in Cheapside, why, the times yet will not bear it.

Secondly, That you said confidently (like a prophet) that within two years from the time of your speech, there should be no government in England, neither Parliament, nor Magistrate, nor any such.

This will be deposed from your own mouth, the last of these we see is false, there hath been a Parliament since that time, and there are Magistrates at this day.

This did John of Leyden with his visions and revelations, he prophecyed the deliverance of the town of Munster, [Page 105] which was delivered up, and the prophet was tortured and hanged upon the highest steeple in an iron cage, which re­mains to this day (saith Spanhemius) as a monument of the Magistrates justice, and to learn men to take heed how they despise the Deity.

Henry Nicholas proph [...]cied that he should be raised from the dead after three daies, but his memory, bones, and all lye rotting to this hour.

David George prophesied of his rising from the dead too, indeed he was raised, but not to life, but to execution, the Senate of Bazill being deceived by his seeming meek­nesse and hypocrisie while he was alive, and being informed of his wicked doctrines against the Lord Christ, when he was dead, the Magistrate (saith Spanhemius) by a solemn ordinance commanded his wretched corps in his coffin to the place of execution, and there burnt it to ashes.

Thus did Hosman, whom his disciples called Eliah (as our Dr is called Father Abraham) who said that Stras­burg was the new Jerusalem, this fellow was clapt up in prison by the Magistrate, the Anabaptists prophesied that he should come out with an hundred and fourty four thou­sand sealed ones, and smite the earth, but he never came out, but died in prison, many more might be recited for these quaking familisticall times, but we will name but one more, and that is out of New England.

Mrs Hutchinson when she was imprisoned for her blas­phemies by the Magistrate, prophesied that she should be miraculously delivered as Daniel out of the Lions den, but it proved false; she was afterward banished by the Magi­strate to Road-Iland, from thence removed to the Dutch plantation, near a place in the Map called Hell-gate; where the Indians contrary to their wont, at least beside it, slew her, some say burnt her, and all hers.

Ob. If it be said, did not Mr Knox prophesie of the han­ging of the Lord Grange? and Mr Wise-Heart foretell the shamefull death of Cardinall Beaton? who was hanged o­ver the window out of which he lookt to see the man of God burnt? so did not Luther speak many things of Germany, [Page 106] and of his own writings that came to passe?

Ans. First, These men were sound in the faith and god­ly. Secondly, They did not pretend immediate revelations. Thirdly, They speak by the rules of Scripture, as, the trans­gressours shall be cut off and, the enemies of God shall con­sume away. Fourthly, They spoke them as their judge­ment, they imposed them on no mans faith, these were no more revelations and prophesies then what that eminentDr Twisse. Saint of God whose memory is precious, said to one of us upon the breaking of the short Parliament in 1641 concer­ning the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. sc. I do much mi­stake if ever God suffer that man to die in his bed.

Thirdly, As to his visions.

The Dr speaks much of his visions, and those of the dark-world, the world of Divells, and the light world of Angells, and the eternall world of glory, and that he is now past En­thusiasmes (it seems he hath been acquainted with that cheat of the Divell also,) and lives in glory; the height of these pretended glorious visions renders them but the more deeply diabolicall.

Visions in Scripture are for the matter the same with re­velations, only they differ in this, that visions are by the re­presentation of the images of things to the mind, as to Esay, Jeremiah, the Scriptures use the terms promiscuously, it is commonly received that Paul was converted by a visi­on, Acts 26.19. I was not (saith he) to King A­grippa disobedient to the heavenly vision, & he was strength­ened in his great labours, pains, and dangers by a vision, Act. 18.8, 9. The Lord in a vision by night said to him, be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace.

But what is this to this Dr? Paul by a vision instrumen­tally from a blasphemer becomes a preacher, his man by his visions of another kind from a mean preacher becomes a bold blasphemer, God doth not now convert men by seeing vi­sions, but by hearing sermons, we mean by the word, the Lord Christ in heaven keeps, to his own prayer, san­ctify [Page 107] them, through thy truth. John. 17.17.

What God may do by permitting, and ordering the apparition of the Divell to some sinner, is another case, (but it is very rare) either forSee Sleidan. moribundus suis acclamasse scitur, ut ca­dem, qui le­ctum conscen­deret, arcerent lib. 23. cap. ult. terrour, and despair, as to Cres­centius, to whom the Divell appeared as a black Dog, with fiery eyes, and ears hanging down to the ground, or for reco­very, which is extraordinarily seldome, we know but one, and that in these dayes, and because fit for these dayes, take it as it followeth from a godly ear-witnesse, under his own hand.

Dear Sir, I have one thing to tell you, which is a very re­markable passage of divine providence amongst us, here is one Nicholas Earle a Shoemaker, sometimes living at Totnes, now a souldier in the fort of Plymmouth, within this moneth he did estrange himself from God, conceiving there was no need of the ministery, that it must down, and that the Sacraments were but ceremonies, and the Sabbath not to be observed, to that purpose he argued with some about it on the Saturday, my man was present, and saw him in his hot contestation falling to the ground; he detested those that bear the image of God, conceiving himself the only Saint, he was against singing of Psalms, insomuch that when others did sing, he would say they did lie like Divells; he resolved to open his Shop windowes the next Lords day, but on the Saturday night he was under strong temptations, the Divell seemed to appear to him with terrible, strange roarings, on the Sabbath day he sent for me, and when I came, at the first I was welcome to him, but suddenly he spit in defiance at me, seeing him in that temper I left him. The Munday about twelve a clock he came to himself, and hath a strong conviction of his errours, whereas he had left praying for a blessing, and returning thanks for the creatures received, he is now much troubled at the thoughts of it; I have had con­ference with him, he cannot be thankfull enough to God for his mercy in returning him so soon, he desires the mini­sters to blesse God for his return, and prayes that he may be stedfast in the truth, this that I have written to you is certain truth, you may do well to acquaint others to take heed how [Page 108] they professedly step out of Gods wayes, he wisheth that all his friends may take warning by him.

Here are symptomes of conversion, but the issue we know not, reall grace is glorious and rare, upon the one hand of it a man may live blamelesse, and die Christlesse, and upon the other hand, a profane person may come to be chain­ed and terrified while he lives, and yet to be tormented in chains when he dies. But to proceed.

Either your visions are contrary to or beside the written word, or else according to it: if the first, we demand, how are they from God? if they be revelations of things contain­ed in scripture, we demand, why from God? the ground of our demand is from that text, (though we might quote 20 more) Luke 16.29. They have Moses and the prophets. Dives answered, nay Father Abraham, but if one come from the dead, then they will believe, as if Dives had said, tis true, they have Moses and the prophets, but non satis est, that is not enough; Abraham answered, if they will not believe Moses and the prophets, neither would they be­lieve though one came from the dead.

Do we not more certainly see and believe the devil to be prince of the air? and do we not more clearly discern spiritu­all wickednesses in high places? upon the account of the most infallible word, then by seeing the devil in a postillian at Bradfield? do we not know that he is a lion, and dragon, and old serpent, more clearly a thousand times in the word of God, then in Dr Pordages glasse windows and sieling? is not the discovery of their number, power, malice, fierce­nesse more durably laid down in the blessed Bible, then in your brick chimney? doth not the experience of the saints second the word, and they feel it true, and see it in others, better then in your sulphur, soot and salt?

Is not the hidden manna, the smell of Christs garments, the white stone, the sweetnesse of his ointment, the everla­sting love of the Father, the comforts of the blessed spirit, is not one ray, one shine, one drop of these glories upon the heart, through the spirit of grace, by the word of grace, bet­ter shall we say, then your dews of Paradice, your harmonies? we abhorre the comparison.

Obj. But, God may, what hinders? pag. 67. excellent Logick.

Ans. Dr, make your syllogisme, if you cannot, we will help to make your proposition. what God may, that he doth; we deny it, you and all yours will never prove it: nay, do we not know, that through divine permission and wise ordering, the devil may? nay, do we not find in these dayes he doth, nay in this very case before us? you cozen your deluded silly women, with a may not saints enjoy?

May not Dr Pordage have his Logick ad unguem, dip, and understand in Chrysostome, render Grammatically five lines in Tully, or five verses in Virgil prima facie? yet we know he hath not the faculty,

We speak not this to overstresse that kind of learning, ve­ry desireable, and serviceable, nay we should have been a­shamed to drop this, but that we are ashamed to see the froth, and folly of this man, even since his coming into the virgin life, that in this also he will vain gloriously seem to have that learning, which he never had, no not to a sin­gle sip.

Obj. But the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles had vi­sions. pag. 67.

Ans. Make your inference: what then? which of these are you? did you never read 1. Heb. 1. God who at sun­dry times, and in [...] per multas partes, [...] quoad formam. divers manners spake unto the Fathers by the prophets, hath in these last times spoken unto us by his Son. Did you never read some pent commentary of the lower form, on this text? if you did not, what makes your outward man to be so censorious? if you did, what makes your inward man so ignorant? take one for all.

Deus loquutus est.
  • Olim per prophetas.
  • Tunc Patribus.
  • Tunc multifariam.
  • Nunc per filium.
  • Nunc autem nobis.
  • Nunc ut in fine temporum.

Conditio igitur nostra exhac parte potior est, in modo quo (que) revelationis excellimus, & after, Quum Deum nobis locutum [Page 110] esse dicit in his postremis temporibus significat, non amplius esse causam cur expectatione novae revelationis simus suspen­si, neque enim particularis est sermo quem attulit Christus, sed extrema clausula. & Calvin in locum.

God spake
  • Heretofore by the prophets.
  • Then to the Fathers.
  • Then sundry wayes.
  • Now by his Son.
  • Now to us.
  • Now as in the last time, ful­ly.

But you proceed, your visions are suitable to the visions of the Prophets and Apostles, even to Pauls rapture into the third heaven, and Johns voices upon mount Sion, you tell us this, but pray who told you so? give us but one sin­gle argument, shew us but one single instance of any saint that hath had scripture visions, since the vision of John did conclude the scripture,

As Suetonius in Caligul.Hitherto as of a saint, now speak we must as of a monster.

Let the reader observe, that before these visions, and since, this man that tells you pag. 73. the spirituall eye locked up and shut by the fall, hath been opened in an extraordinary way to him and his, and that ever since their spirituall sen­ces have never been shut, we say this man did before, and hath since, most blasphemously reproached the Godhead, and bloud of the Lord Jesus.

We do not desire that the meanest reader may see by our eyes, we referre him to the relation, nothing doubting but he will easily observe, that the Deponents as to this article (by which we conclude his visions to be devilismes,) were, and are consciencious and knowing, and their depositions full and clear: the D•s answers (where they have any thing like answers) false and forged, and so we leave him to judge as he sees cause.

Tis some trouble to us, that we are no more troubled and affected in our hearts, that such contumely should be cast upon our Lord Christ, and the sp rits about the throne, that the angels of glory must be printed to converse with him, who hath spoken wickedly against their Lord, even the Lord of glory.

Obj. But he denies it solemnly.

Ans. So did Arrius in the [...]. Epiphan. Haer. 69. very face of Constantine, so do malefactours at every assize, and sessions.

Obj. But the Dr is not maintaining, and holding now.

Ans. Yes, he is, till he recant, and repent, which the Lord grant, and hasten.

Obj. But, you see his protestation.

Ans. We do not believe it, and we will offer a reason for it too, that is this, if he did really own that faith which formerly he destroyed▪ he would truly be sorrowfull for de­stroying that faith, which now he saith he owns: thus did S. Paul, but of his sorrow who sees any evidence?

The truth is, from his visions (he saith) he [...]s come to vir­ginity, from thence to the bestiality of marriage, from thence either it must be his pleasure, that the wo [...]ld shall end with this generation, which is more then impiously absurd, or else he must be for community, which is more then probable, though more thenSome Indians punishing adul­tery with death even in th [...] greatest, with­out mercy. Paganish▪ or else, women to bear chil­dren, otherwise then by men, which is more then a Bed­lam fancy.

The premisses considered▪ (though we do perswade our selves we have not known the tithe of his abominations, and the pranks of Sathan amongst him and his) we have ground to believe, that his visions were nothing else but Erburies prophesies, Mary Gadberries lights, poor Gilpins inward voice, and the silly womens being taken up into heaven, at Newbery, with many other small pieces of visioners in the nation, collected into one volume, and in somewhat a fairer dresse presented by Sathan at Bradfield, and printed by him in London, for Giles Calvert stationer to the &c.

Before we shut up this, we would desire the reader to af­ford us a little of his time, and patience, to read these four considerations.

First, The divine scriptures, there is excellency, sufficien­cy, and profitablenesse to edification, exhortation, comfort, to convince, to convert, to confirm, all which the blessed spi­rit works by these, as it pleaseth him: we know the scri­ptures can do nothing without the spirit, and we are certain­ly [Page 112] perswaded the holy spirit will do nothing without the scriptures.

The promise of grace is of both these, sc. my word and my spirit, Isa. 59. last. which promise relates to gospel times, as to the more clear and plentifull vouchsafement of both, and blessed be God it is at this day in some measure fulfilled amongst the Lords chosen ones; therefore we have reason to believe, that the pretended visions of heaven a­mongst this kind of men, are reall delusions of hell, design­ed to thrust out the scriptures.

As for the onelynesse and fulnesse of the scriptures, we of­fer amongst many that might be offered, these few.

First, 2 Thessal. 2.1.2. Now we beseech you brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus, that ye be not shaken in mind, Paul ob­serves th [...]ee wa [...]es of decei­ving. 1. the pretence of re­velation, 2. the smoothnesse and subtilty of ex­pression, 3. the forgery of te­stimony. neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us; and that they might not be deceived by either of these, he layes down the word, as a sure rule and guide.

The next is that 1 Timothy 6.3. If any man teach other­wise (upon what pretence soever) and consent not to whol­some words, even the words of our Lord Jesus, and to the doctrine which is after Godlinesse, he is proud &c.

The third is that full text 2 Tim. 3. last. All scripture is given by the inspiration of God &c. where we have, first, the authority, secondly, infallibility, thirdly, usefulnesse for doctrine, &c. and fourthly the end, that the man of God, even Timothy, may be furnished, and that throughly, and that to all good works.

The last we will mention is that of Peter, 2 Pet. 1.19. We also have a more sure, [...], piscator. or most sure word of prophecy. The Apostle prefers the voice of God in the scripture, above the voice of God upon Mount Tabor, and upon this rea­son; the Jewes to whom he writes, might possibly que­stion that of Mount Tabor, but they never questioned the truth of God in the scriptures.

And because this argument from the fulnesse of the scri­pture is profitable in it self, and seasonable, and direct to our present purpose, we had thoughts to shew the judgements and experience of the saints in it, but for fear of tiring our [Page 113] reader, we will confine our selves to two eminent ones of for­mer, and later times.

The first is Austin, how doth he raise and intend all his faculties to discover the glory of the word, it is (saith he,Austin. ser. 38. ad Fratres in eremo.) more sweet then hony, more pleasant then bread, more soft then oyl, more pure then silver, more precious then gold, the meat of angels, the dainties of Archangels, the glory of the Apostles, the confidence of the Patriarchs, the hope of the Prophets, the crown of Martyres, the doctrine above all to be beloved, the breasts for the faithfull, the wisdome out of the mouth of the most High, the queen of all sapiences, the science of sciences, therefore legite, attendite: there we find that God is length for eternity, breadth for love, height for Majesty, depth for wisdome, it enlightens the mind, purifies the heart, strengthens faith, conquers the devil, contemns the world, with much more.

The other is Luther, I have (saith he) agreed with God,Luth. loc. com, class. 4. p. 76. pactum feci cum D [...]o meo. that I might not have visions or Angels, I am contented that I have the Bible, which is abundantly enough to grace, and glory, this I believe, here I acquiesce, and I am certain I cantot be deceived. Instead of inspiration, we have the do­ctrine of the gospel, and in the place of visions, we have the Sacraments, which shew forth Christ, many Fanaticks have set upon me with their visions and revelations boastingly, but I answer I would rather have Davids understanding in the word, then the visions of the prophets.

The second particular is this, That these visions and reve­lations have been an old shift of Sathan, and a cheat former­ly, and so down to this day.

The Gnosticks, of them the Valentinians and Cerinthians with others, these were horrid railers against Jesus Christ, scoffers of the Apostles, kennels of all noisomnesse and filth, not to be named, non-sensicall wresters of that which they pleased to allow for scripture, yet they gave out they recei­ved ther doctrine by revelation from heaven; and it is ob­servable, that when Cerinthus was driven to a non plus, he said, it was revealed to him by Christ; and so downwards [Page 114] to the Papacy, where we have revelations and visions e­nough to fill a dung-pot.

Dr Reynolds in his conference with Hart saith, that of these Papisticall visions, some were reall, some forged, the first were from the devil, but both first and last were for the devil.

And after when God raised up Luther, with an excellent spirit, and the light of the gospel began to dawn, and shine in despite of Sathan, the Pope, the Emperour, and beg [...]n to spread not only to some towns, but Dukedomes and Pro­vinces, the devil had no way to help himself but by the tran­ces and revelations of that wicked crew in Germany, whoOdio im­placabili nos insectan­tur plus quam papistas, they said there were two true pro­phets, David and King John the Tailor, and two false pro­phets, the Pope and Lu­ther. maligned Luther, with a most deadly hatred, by far more then the Pope himself.

The like entertainment found the reformation in England in Q. Eliz. time, but by the care of the Magistrate this fire of hell did not flame very high, nor last very long, nor spread very faire, now in these dayes the reformation prayed for, being in some hopefull way of attainment, what visions and revelations are pretended farre and wide, even from Dan to Beersheba, from Barwick to the mount?

Thirdly, Observe, this Dr in all his visions sees nothing at all, there is a deep silence as to the everlasting Godhead, and most precious bloud of our Lord Jesus: his visions teach the way to the virgin essence, and the life of perferction, by way of conformity, which way he saw fore-right, and wisdome that eternall virgin invited him to follow her in the the way of circumcision, resignation, and the crosse, and so on to the resurrection, ascension, glorification, and fixation, pag. 77. These good words as they are here, signifie to us that know the man, no more then a bladder upon a nut­shell. Nay, we have reason to believe that in his sense they are full of the wine of dragons, and poison of asps, making our Lord Christ but a type.

Fourthly, Observe, that he ascribes his height and abstractednesse, and his pretended mortification, and living with God unto his visions, for so he tells you the good effect of this upon my self and family, [Page 115] pag. 72. the effects and impressions left upon our spirits, pag. 76. And now for the space of these four years, ever since these, we by the grace of God▪ pag. 77. &c. his holinesse is not wrought by the scriptures, but by apparitoins. So that now it must not be sanctifie them through thy truth, but through visions: now it must be no more believing in Christs name through the word, but through the sight of the dark and light world. Oh horrid! who sees not but in these quaking dayes, when there be so many hundred Qua­kers, who deny the scriptures, this Dr comes in with his vi­sions, and tells their glorious effects, to do a kind office for the devil, viz. to make the scriptures seem uselesse, and by degrees rejected, and at last denied.

We shall conclude this with that precious passage of Dr Reynolds, in his first thes. with a little addition.

Away with the Jews, and their Cabala of Rabbins, a­way with the Montanists and their new comforter, away with the Trent Fathers, and their traditions, away with the Anabaptists, and their revelations, away with the Quakers, and their actings, away with Matthiz, and all his trances, away with the Statists and their guide reason, away with John of Leyden with all his raptures, and away with John of Bradfield, with all his visions. The scripture, the word sufficeth us, our salvation is Christ, the way to salvation, faith, the guide of the way, the scriptures, the light whereof directeth our steps, the food nourisheth our souls, the preservative keeps us from diseases, the plai­ster cureth our wounds, the sword killeth our enemies, and the conduct brings us to eternall glory.

Animad. 8.

He tells the world thus, we had an opening of the eternall world, by a divine transportation into the glory of the ma­jesty, and we heard unutterable words and mysteries. and we daily dy to our self ownments, it is our desire to put some Queries to this Seraphick man: to clear the truth.

First, Dr pray tell us whom do you mean under these [Page 116] high visions, and such a degree of perfection from the enjoy­ment of them? for pitty do not design to cheat your reader at a distance, who never heard of you, but by your book.

Tell him who you mean by we and us, if you will not, then we must, thus, Father These names th [...]y have gi­ven themselves in a mysti­call sense, and there is we be­lieve some my­stery of wick­ednesse in it. Abraham formerly called John Pordage, one, Deborah formerly Mary the quondam wife of John, two, Mary Flavell the woman of them both, three, we know no more unlesse it be Eliezer the Steward of the family called Francis, and Susan: Day, as for Rahab formerly Mary Pocock she denies it, Mr Bromley did first scruple. and thenIf it had not been so, he would quick [...]y have said it: the country conceives his silence to be a concession. deny his oath, being demanded to testi­fie of Mrs Blagraves vision in her morning coat, Mary Allen saith nothing, John Bolt is a pitifull ignoramus fit to be the Drs servant and witnesse, here is all the number that we know of, they shall proceed no further, their folly is made manifest: blessed be God.

Secondly, Why did you very often neglect your people upon the Lords Day, somet [...]mes five or six weeks together, did not you apparen [...]ly mind your own tithes, more then their poor souls? and when you were in the pulpit, why did you use such uncouth, canting, unedifiing language? one of the inhabitants deposed that you preached like John Tawney.

Thirdly, Why did you (when you thought you might safely do it) speak so sleightly of the Lord Jesus? nay, have not you wickedly (if not in some degree Satanically out of your Satanicall pride, from your Satanicall visions) re­proached the bloud of the Lord Christ God blessed for ever? are these the effect of your visions, and your transporting into the eternall world? Oh villany of all villainies!

Fourthly, What mean you by saying p [...]g. 35. that many from out-places were quickened by your ministry and strengthened? do you mean your witnesses? The Lord convert them, or whom do you mean, name one, name but one of those many, this is not only vain boasting, but wick­ed, that may be in a truth, but this is in a ly, The Lord be mercifull to that country.

Fifthly, What mean you by suffering under your nose the [Page 117] child Hannah to call Mrs Flavell Aunt? the child was not so wise as to know her own Father, and you were not so ho­nest as to let her know her own Mother.

Sixthly, What did you mean to suffer Mrs Flavell to live in the practise of such known untruths as these for many years? viz. that Hannah was not her child, that she was the child of a dear friend of hers, that she was entrusted by the mother to look to it, and this against your knowledge have you a dispensation for this lewd practise?

Seventhly, Nay Dr tell us what did you call the child? did not you say Mrs Flavell was her Aunt? you pretend poorly in your book a law suit, as a reason why she concealed her name nine years together, pray tell us why Widow Fruin should be so unsafe? was dead Mr Fruin any more lyable to a law suit then dead Mr Flavell? it smells above ground.

Pray tell us one thing you are best able to answer; and we will put it to you in your own language. sc. were not you Mr Frewins figurative similitude?

Eighthly, Why did you in such an unseemly manner for any man, but in you very scandalous, suffer, nay entertain Mrs Flavell to ly in your bed-chamber for 15 moneths toge­ther, what had this been in one of the narrow stampt priests your persecutors? as you are pleased to call them.

Ninthly, What meant you to lodge at Roger Loughtons house in the chamber next to Mrs Flavells, there being no­thing between you but a latch, why did you lodge there to the suspicion and derision of that family, were there not beds enough at Hounslow but a quarter of a mile distant?

Tenthly, Why do you muffle your reader by printing in your book Mrs Flavell lodged in your chamber for fear of the apparitions. pag. 70. when as the apparitions you confesse lasted but three weeks, and your maid deposeth she lodged there twenty times three weeks? are these the glori­ous impressions left upon your heart by your visions?

The truth is you are and have been since these pretended, glories filthy, as to your doctrine, and the scandall of it, false, covetous, ignorant, we shall propose these in this me­thod [Page 118] to the reader, and give some instances of each.

First, What do you mean by proposing to the world your practise and deliberate judgement, as to leave your wife! you tell us something of your self, pray let your self tell us something, was your marriage with the woman (whom in print you call Mrs Pordage) was it a marriage in the Lord or not? if it were, why do not you live together in your re­lations in knowledge and wisdome? Those whom God hath joined let no man put asunder, art thou bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed? Mat. 19.6, 1 Cor. 7.27. This is the language of the precious word to us in the lower dispensati­on (as 'tis called) if you did not marry in the Lord but came together in a bestiall, carnall, adulterous way (as you phrase it) whose fault was that? is it the fault of Gods Ordinance have you not learned to distinguish between Gods institution, and mans abuse of it? why do you call marriage idolatrous, adulterous.

Secondly, you tell us that now you and your quondam wife separate, do us the favour to tell us from what you se­parate, is your separation from a thing lawfull, then who hath required this at your hand? who bad you do it? was it one of your Angels in you bright world, your mundus lu­minosus? if you separate from the use of marriage as a thing unlawfull, who told you it was so? was it not one of your Divels in your dark world, in your mundus te­nebrosus?

Thirdly, Why are you so unhappily like theManichaei auditoribus su­is ut plebeis & imperfectiori­bus nuptias con­cedebant, ele­ctis vero (quos ita vocabant) & perfectiori­bus omnino in­terdicebant u­sum eonjugiii Chem. Ez [...]m: par. 3. p. 5. Mani­chees of old a filthy generation, you say in your book you do not disswade people from marriage, but you propose even to the married the virgin life as more perfect; yet we know the Manichees were, and the country sayes, you are against marriage, though neither they then, nor you now will own it publickly, amongst their proselytes they did own it, and whether you have done so amongst your disciples we will leave it to the judicious by what followes, your own judgement for the use and having more women then one hath been proved upon oath, which is a sacred thing even a­mong the Paynims.

Fourthly, Pray Dr tell us what mean some of your fa­mily to say to this purpose, thatUxorem du­cens grauius peccat quod si fornicetur. married persons were as bad or worse, then they that had a bastard.

Fifthly, What made one of your disciples to say lately that marriage was not lawfull, and that she would not mar­ry if she might gain never so much.

What meant one of your disciples to tell a married wo­man that she must come out of that beastly nature, speaking of marriage.

Six [...]hly, Whence did she learn to expound that text, Luk. 20.30. Was it not from you viz. they that were accoun­ted worthy of that world▪ and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, thus, you think (quoth she) that that text is to be meant of the end of the world, No no, it is to be understood of Christ rising in us, in you, and in me, and then we must neither marry, nor be gi­ven in marriage, is not your hand in all this?

Seventhly, why did you make no answer to that article exhibited against you, sc. that marriage was the way of beasts▪ if you say it was not proved, we reply there was no cause, you never denied it.

The second particular for your falsenesse.

First, Most of your answers are most untrue, and some of them notoriously and deliberately false.

Secondly, Why did you slanderously report, and plead openly and since print pag, 88. that George Aslet was a drunkard? when as you know no such thing by him at all, nay when all the country that know him know it to be ut­terly false.

Thirdly, Why would some of you have inveig [...]ed a man to witnesse this against him before the Commissioners? de­signing by such a lewd slander to weaken his testimony, may a man lie and swear false to save a saint from the men of the world?

Fourthly, Why do you falsely print pag, 88. that good­wife Knap under her hand and before witnesse hath denied that she told George Aslet, that Mrs Flavell threatned to have her whipt, for saying something of another child besides [Page 120] her boy Stephen? when the woman never denied it, but still affirms that Mrs Flavell did deny to her that ever she had any child besides Stephen, the woman would have you shew her hand, amongst you she was circumvented by a lie, and now she saith, you have printed a forgery.

Fifthly, Why did you take one of your parish into your study, having summoned him by a warrant to appear be­fore the Justices fot you, and then, and there did dictate to him what be should swear? and why did you profer to write it down for him in case he could not remember your instru­ction? how unconscionable is this?

Sixthly, Why do you print pag. 88. that you expounded that in Genesis concerning Abraham first historically? the witnesse saith it is a studied lye, and doth offer to depose it, and will prove it an untruth by severall reasons.

Seventhly, Why do you print that you never denied wa­ter-baptisme to be the ordinance of Jesus Christ? Francis Knight a pious knowing man saith the contrary under his hand, and bids us tell you in print, that if you deny it (as you have done) that you have a face of brasse, you may say or unsay (it seems) what you please

Eighthly, Why do you print in your Ep. Ded. to his Highnesse, that his ordinance for ejecting scandalous mini­sters is abused to the condemnation of the St. Anti­christ. St. Ignorant. St. Blasphe­mer. St. Familist. Saints? and why do you prognosticate that the Commissioners will turn the edge of it against them thaet have glorious discoveries of God? we begin to think the Divell is afraid of the Ordi­nance, and shall take these bold words for an untruth, till you produce what Saints, when, and where, and by whom persecuted.

Ninthly, Why do you say pag. 112. and often, that the Commissioners have used all means to hinder a rehear­ing of your cause? for our parts we have not heard of any that hath done this, neither have we attempted it directly or indirectly, there is such a boasting of so many great friends you have between Charing crosse, and Westminster Hall, that we have expected it every week, but for our hin­dering of it, till you prove it, it must go for an untruth, and [Page 121] a design of your own to harden the Familists and the Qua­kers in London, Bristoll, Lechlade, Reding. &c.

The thi [...]d particular covetousnesse.

First, Why did you defraud one of your neighbours in bargaining, letting, and renting? the man was before the Commissioners to make his complaint, and hath since made it severall times to understanding Christians.

Secondly, Why did you after you came out of your Fa­milisticall pulpit on the Lords Day, presently fall to dis­course with one of your neighbou [...]s of buying and selling? were you so full of the world you wanted vent, could you not stay for your own day?

Thirdly, Why did you hire out your teams of horse to carry bark, and this to the great hinderance of your neigh­bours who did use to earne mony that way?

Fourthly, Nay why did you when your poor neighbours had agreed to carry at such a price, agree at an under price, for lesse, to get the employment out of their hands, are these your parcells of perfection?

Fifthly, Why did you rent land and sow it to halfes when corn was dear and your living worth hundreds? by your example you did fearfully harden your people in earthly mindednesse, your heart mortified by your visions of dark­nesse thought you could never have enough.

Sixthly, Why did you tell the people in the pulpit when you came to Bradfield, that now the great pot should go o­ver, and what a liberall house you would keep (a most se­raphick argument, is it not?) but they say they could never see pot, pan, nor kittle, indeed they say you are a very miser, an earth worm.

Seventhly, When one of your neighbours was taken from his plough oftentimes in your businesse, went to New­bery eight miles for you five or six times, and to London for you thirty nine miles, and you promised to pay him for his labour, why did you give him for a hundred and fifty miles travell even two shillings?

Eighthly, But Dr when there was a collection for a poor burntMariborough town, and you spake to the people to give liberally, [Page 122] and many knowing the place did resolve to do so, why were you the leading man so cruell, you threw down your twelve pence, even to the scorn and table-talk of some rich inhabi­tants in your parish.

Ninthly, Why did you wring dues from the people be­yond the customes of the parish for marrying? tis true this was put in as an article against you by your parishioners, and tis as true it was put out by your accuser, you vapour much upon this in your book, can you say that any of your persecutors did take such a sordid way as to bargain before hand, and to demand more then their dues?

Why did you trouble your parishioners & that often before the Commissioners, when all the difference did not amount to above eighteen pence? your visioning family hath been complaining and crying as the Horse-leach give, give, the Lord cure this dropsie in yours and you, in us and ours.

The fourth particular ignorance taken out of his Book.

First, Why do you say that the law of nature prompts you, and your way to require an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? doth the law of nature allow private revenge? why are you such an ignoramus as to joyn with the Pharisees to corrupt the text?in the Epistle to the Com­missioners. it seems you have a warrant from the law to revenge your selves, it concerns the Magistrate to take care you may not have power too, this is not only ig­norance, but tends to sedition also.

Secondly, What do you mean in saying But the law of grace commands us to deny our selves? do you mean that Gospell commands do thwart the commands of the law? we know that Jesus Christ did not fill up, much lesse contra­dict the law, but vindicate, and clear it from the false glos­ses of the Scribes, and Pharisees whom you imitate in this also.

Thirdly, Why do you confound the essentiall word, Ibid. and the engrafted word, and make them both one? we hope it was your ignorance, though we have too many reasons to believe that even in this you did lift up your heel and kick at Jesus Christ, or else to make no other word but the word within us, as Swincfield, Gortyn, and then if you come to have power, let all godly men beware their throats.

Fourthly, Why do you say that Mat. 28.19. Go teach all nations and baptize, pag. 27. that baptisme there may very well be understood of the baptisme of the spirit, shew what one of all the many expositors received for pious and orthodoxe did ever sense it so? in those primitive times, either they had those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost before they were baptized, as in the case of Cornelius. Act. 10.47. or else they were baptized before they had these gifts as the disciples at Samaria, Acts 8.16, 17. Did not you in this maliciously asperse all water baptisme? and through pride and ignorance dream that you should receive power from on high to bestow the graces of the spirit on whom you pleased?

Fifthly,Ibid. Why do you say that the Apostles did admini­ster the baptisme of the spirit to all their converts? how ma­ny visible converts were there and upon that account bapti­zed, who never had either the extraordinary gifts, or the saving graces of the spirit? what do you think of the Fami­lists old acquaintance, Simon Magus?

Sixthly, Why did you say that baptisme is a Gospell or­dinance instituted by John? and now to qualifie the busi­nesse you print it (instrumentally) do instruments use to institute ordinances? thus you labour to support your igno­rance by a falsitie fore-thought.

7. You say that your judgement is for persons to live as single, though in united formes, and your deliberate practise is thereafter, well, but why do you say that this practise is according to that of Christ, Mat. 19.12. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Pray tell us, doth not our [Page 124] Lord Christ speak to the unmarried? read the 10 verse, the disciples said, if the case be so, it is not good to marry: Christ answered, But all men cannot receive it, or abstain from marriage, cannot live Batchelours, what is this to you that have been a married man these many years?

8. So the other of Christian Eunuchisme, there be some Eunuchs for the kingdome of heaven, you are of the last sort, you were not born so, and you were not made so of men, but you have made your self so, but we tell you again, you igno­rantly, if not wickedly pervert the text, for the text is meant of the unmarried, nay the very drift of the chapter from the first verse to the ninth, is to confirm the bond of marriage as indissoluble, against the Pharisees: what doth this con­cern you, that have a wife and seven or eight children?

9. You are most unhappy in your Marginall text, to 1 Cor. 7.38. let them that marry be as though they mar­ried not; do you think the meaning of the Apostle is, that man and wife should not dwell together, as man and wife? but live, as you pretend, you and Mrs Pordage have done, as though you were not man and wife. It is clear, that in this, you and Mrs Pordage are no more, then you and Mrs Flavell.

10. Why do you say Christ was born of a Virgin, and lived in virginity, Christus non duxit ux­orem, & ejus actio est nostra instructio, said the Gnostick [...]. Respondet Cle­mens, conjugi­um Christus approbavit do­ctrina, & mi­raculis. Chem. ex­am. par. 3. leaving us an example? was that the reason why he did come? When we think of the infinity and glory of the Lord Christ, how unsuitable marriage was to him, and how his work was to give up his soul a ransome, we cannot but admire at the blindnesse of this Dr, who still is driving at this, that Christ is but a type.

Why do you say that you had two spirituall worlds dis­covered to you, and apply to these worlds that text, Heb. 1.2. By whom also he made the world; were the worlds in that verse made by Christ, your mundi Idaeales your phantasti­call worlds at Bradfield, pittifull ignorance.

11. Why do you quote that text, Heb. 5.14. but strong meat belongs to those that are of full age, and have their sences exercised to discern both good and evil, and wretchedly apply it to your spirituall sensation, (as you call [Page 125] it) and the opening of your inward sences, to see cloven feet, and dragons? is this the meaning of the holy spirit?

12. You say among the devils you saw principalities, powers, dignities, and you say this is answerable to the text, Eph. 6.12. Tell us, who told you, which was this, and which that? did any one point with a rod, and say to your inward hearing, there goes a prince, there goes a power? why do you force that text to palliate the matter, and cheat your reader? this text proves that the devils are by Gods just judgement rulers of this world, but it doth not prove any government or princedome among themselves.

13. To hasten: You say you had an opening of the eter­nall world, the kingdome prepared, where you were, as Paul once, &c. pag. 78, and you call it the world to come, and quote for it Heb. 2.5. He hath not put in subjection to the Angels the world to come, whereof we speak. We do con­fesse this text is controverted, Calvin understands it of the world restored by Christ, our right being forfeited by sin; Piscator of the mundus renovatus, as in 2 Pet. 3.11.So the Anno­tations on the New Test. o­thers of the gospel world, because of the context. But we conceive it is hardly sence to understand it as you do, of the kingdome of glory, for how alien and forreign is it to S. Pauls mind, to read that text thus, he hath not put in subje­ction to the Angels the kingdome of glory, of which we now eak.

Though this might have passed for a small mistake in an­other, yet in this Dr it is considerable, because he pretends his hearing of the unutterable misteries of that kingdome, and therefore his ignorance is observable. we believe S. Pauls rapture, but not his in the least, by any means.

14. In the same place you say that your divine transpor­tation was agreeable to that of John 17.24. Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory.

What ignorance, and wresting of the scripture is this? was Christ with you in your chamber at Bradfield? what did you behold of the glory of Christ there? it is justly char­ged, [Page 126] and fully proved, and righteously sentenced against you that you have blasphemed that glory, sc. his Godhead and bloud; and you do not tell us that in this third heaven you saw any thing of either: is that sweet prayer to be under­stood of visions here on earth, or of believers coming to, and abiding in heaven with Christ for ever?

15. So Heb. 10.19. is quoted by you to speak for your entrance into the eternall world by your visions, but the text saith no such thing, the text doth not say, we have an en­trance into the holiest by visions, (which are delusions) but by the bloud of Jesus.

16. What did you mean to call wisdome, and quote for it Pro. 8.20, 23. the eternall virgin? See the last. Annot. Assemb. upon the text. do you know what you say? who is there meant by wisdome, is it not Jesus Christ? did he shew you the way that leads to the life of vir­ginity, to leave your wife? why do you call him the eternall virgin? is it not to possesse your people against marriage? are you out of your wits?

17. Why did you insultingly p. 103. charge Mr Trap­ham a godly person, one of the Commissioners, and now print him a man of mean intellectualls, and why? because he never heard of any other death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but at Jerusalem: you pittifull ignoramus, is not this true? doth not the Apostle say, Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more? Rom. 6.9. and in that he died, he died once, and Christ was offered once, not often. Heb. 9. last. Now if he died but once, he rose but once, and both these he did at Jerusalem. You say that Mr Trapham ne­ver read, or never understood these three texts.

First, Heb. 6.6. You Dr, is that text understood of backsliders reall crucifying Christ on earth, or their wic­ked trampling and profaning of his bloud, now he is in glory? was this done by their hands, or by their hearts?

The next you quote is Gal. 3.1. Is this text understood of a crucifying Christ indeed, or the shewing forth of his death in the word and Sacraments? doth not that very verse say that Christ was set forth amongst them? and be­fore [Page 127] whose eyes (mark Dr) not by whose hands, and crucifi­ed amongst you, not by you.

For the other text you quote, about Christs rising, Eph. 2.5. Tis true, Gods elect were quickened with Christ, what then, what do you conclude? ergo did Christ rise in other places besides Jerusalem?

The truth is, Mr Trapham was transported with a just indignation, to hear this mans brother vent such Familisti­call stuffe concerning the man child, reported by himself to be born at Bradfield, sc. that this man child was (as the younger Pordage said) the spirituall birth, life, death, re­surrection of Jesus Christ, in the nature of Mrs Flavell, who lies under the scandall of a bastard, by this Dr hitherto, because they have had nine moneths time to produce a cer­tificate of the town, and county, where her dead pretended husband Mr Frewin was married, lived, and died; and we suppose that in honour and conscience they are bound to vin­dicate their innocency, (if they be innocent.)

This speech of the younger Mr Pordage, was the occasion of Mr Traphams speaking what he did, which is a truth, at which the ignorance of this Dr scoffes. It is such a truth that strikes through the loins of Familisme.

18. Why doth your learning quote for your receiving tithes, Psal. 24.1. The earth is the Lords, and the fulnesse thereof? from whence you say, that tithes are the Lords by an undoubted interest, as well the tenth (say you) as all the rest, and all the rest as the tenth; most profound reasoning. Let the countreyman look to it, for as you have had the tithe under this Magistrate, and the Farmer all the rest, so had you a Magistrate to your own mind, by his order, you might take all the rest, and leave the tithe to the Far­mer.

What did this man mean to say pag. 86. that upon the supposall of his guilt of adultery, yet now he is not charge­able, and why? because he was not accused within a year after the fact.

It is much, that he having such visions of the inward world, should be so dark in the justice of the outward world. [Page 128] Sir, you were not prosecuted as a felon, for adultery by a law ex post facto, for your life, but merely for the scandall of adultery, as you was, (though you never were in any sence) a minister, in regard of your office, before the Com­missioners, who as such, are impowered only to take notice of scandall.

Your Plea had been rationall before a Judge of Assize, but before the Commissioners absurd, yet you fill a page with this stuff, and clamour upon your betters. Suppose a member of a Church should have a pardon as to life, for an act of Adultery, should this pardon exempt him from the censure of the Church in point of the scandall of adultery? this was much your case, and to this purpose tended Mr Fords rationall discourse, which you in your sillinesse jeere and scoffe at.

Animad. 9.

He offered to the Commissioners his protestation, which sounds orthodox. and since hath published it in print to the view of the world, beginning thus, I John Pordage do so­lemnly avow and protest, &c. pag. 91.


It is confessed that his appeal to God and protestation are apt to beguile the plain hearted, therefore we desire the rea­der to consider these particulars ensuing.

1. Arrius, whose bowels gushed out at his easment upon the stool, according as Constantine the pious Emperour had told him, that in case he did [...]. &c. Epiph n. cont. Haer. lib. 2. Tom. 2. H [...]er. 69. dissemble, God would find him out speedily.

This Arrius brought in a paper into the Councell ofSocr. Schol. Hist Eccles. lib. penult. Nice, in the form of sound and wholsome words, but re­served his own hereticall opinions, in another paper within his bosome, protesting he believed all this, clapping his hand upon his breast, that he believed what there he had written. And because we have first mentioned Arrius, it may not be altogether impertinent to shew how that wretch and this [Page 129] Dr were alike in their lives, we heartily wish in their death they may be divided; their likenesse is in these particulars.

First, Arrius was a man pretending to gravity, Epiph. con. Haer. lib. 2. Tom. 2. Haer. 69. holy­nesse, contempt of the world, so this man.

Secondly, Arrius went about with flattering speeches, smooth smiling words and insinuating entisements of meek­nesse, so this Dr.

Thirdly, Arrius drew after him seven hundred profes­sing virginity, but here the Dr excells him though not in his number, yet in his notion, for he is familiar with the vir­gin essence, only here is the difference, Arrius seduced vir­gins, but did not disswade them from marriage, this man disswades the married from the marriage bed, and would seduce them to his virginity.

Fourthly, Arrius complained of persecution by the Bishops, and that for Christ, this complaint he made to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia one too much of his own wretched way, and in favour with the Empe­rour, so this man complaines of persecution by the poor, trampled ministers, we blesse God that we have not much fear as to his protection, though he and his prose­lytes, and his family do slanderously boast much among the country people.

Fifthly, Arrius complains much of the bitternesse of the magistrate, at least by the instigation of the Bishops for e­jecting him, and his as wicked men, and monstrous not fit to live; just so doth this Dr in his book pag. 102, 103, 104.

Sixthly, Arrius and his complices did abuse the ear of Constantine, Simulate & per [...]roniam paenitentiam egit. Epiph. and by deliberate forgeries did calumniate A­thanasius and the orthodoxe; so doth this man labour to serve the priests (as he termed them) in his book.

Seventhly, Arrius was a notorious dissembler in his life, and died stinkingly (as Fox saith of Dr Gardner) at the [...]akes.

For the first of these we leave this Dr to the judgement of Christians.

For the second,Aug. de Haer. Haer. 88. we referre it into the hands of a most wise and gracious God.

Secondly Thus did Pelagius wretchedly d [...]ssemble, he [Page 130] did seem to unlade his filthy stomach of his proud and wick­ed heresie, by a solemn pulick renunciation, afterwards he re­turned with the Dog to his vomit, and the swine to the mire.

But secondly of later times, and there observe the histo­ry of Valentinus Gentilis, this wretch went further then this Dr, for he not only made a solemn and Orthodox confessi­on of his faith, but also a recantation of his heresies, at last an abjuration under his own hand.

The Senate of Geneva hoped that his repentance was cor­diall and sincere.

He confessed that he offended in denying Christ to be God.

He professed he did believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, and cryed out, Oh my conscience is wounded for my incon­siderate answers to that excellent Divine and servant of God John Calvin, I make no question but the searcher of all hearts hath forgiven me, and I beseech you likewise to for­give me.

He walked bare-legged, bare-footed, and bare-headed through every street in the city, with a light in his hand, and a trumpet sounded before him, he burnt all his hereticall doctrines with his own hand. Septemb. 4. 1558.

Aret. Hist. Val. Gent. 1.2.20.The Senate forgave him, only took his oath that he should not depart the city without their leave, but he soon brake his oath, and fled away, the Governour of the Pro­vince of Gaium enquiring into, and finding out his wretch­ed opinions committed him to prison, but after a while re­leased him, but no sooner was he delivered, but he published his blasphemies in print, and abused the Governour dedica­ting his book to the Governour; and making men believe as though his book came forth with the Governours consent, and authority; not long after he goes to Lyons, where he was fifty daies, and by complying with theThe Papists did tolerate a blasphemer, because an An­ti-Calvinist, and this Dr doth much please himself in his foolish hopes because he is an Anti-presbyterian. Papists a­gainst Calvin he was released; after many journeyes and dissemblings knowing that Calvin was dead, he came back to his old quarters to Gaium, where by a wonderfull providence the old zealous Governour whom he had abused, commanded in chief, though out of his turn, the Governour cryed Fiat quod justum est, and clapt him up in [Page 131] prison, this was in the year 1556, eight years after the Se­nate of Geneva had dismissed him, he appeals from the Go­vernour of Gaium his enemy to the Senate of Berne, by them he is charged with Blasphemy, Heresy, Perjury, and for joining with Alciate and Bland [...]ate for the seduc [...]ng of precious souls, he renounced them both, a [...]d said, that Alci­ate was turned a Turk, and Blandrate a Sabellian, the Se­nate picked out all his heresies and blasphemies new and old, wherein Valentine agreed with Arrius; Justo Dei ju­dicio caesus blasphem are simul & vivere desiit. Aret. the Senate heard him from the fifth of August till the ninth of Sep­tember, he remained stubborn, confident, and pertinacious, The Senate pronounced the sentence of death upon him, which was executed accordingly, the judicious reader will quickly make the paralell; it was a fair warning given him by the Senate of Geneva, and their admonition was prophe­ticall. viz. Filium Dei quem praedicamus in Diabolum transfiguras, Deum quem colimus vocas Deum Turcarum, mult aque ejus generis, sed vide miser, ne te praecipetaverit tuus furor, ut voces emitteres quae per jugulum redeant: Thou dost transfigure the Son of God into a Divell, our God thou callest the God of the Turks, wretch beware least thine own mouth cuts thine own throat.

Secondly, Many more might be produced, but we shall trouble the reader but only with these late observations.

First, Mrs Hutchinson of New-England defended her o­pinions with lies and equivocations, and pretended she was still of Mr Cottons judgement, she professed her repentance, but still kept her wicked opinions, at last through Mr Cot­tons and Mr Davenports means, she confessed before the con­gregation her heresies, that she was deserted of God, deluded by the Divell in her revelations, desired the congregation to pray for her yet afterwards she was found to be a lyer, giving no satisfaction in her answers, but by lying circum locutions denied all.

Secondly A learned man & a professour of religion in Cam­bridge denied propitiation for sins by the death of Christ made the Lord Christ to be but a figure, and a type, and be­ing opposed by one now a godly minister, he took him by [Page 132] the hand, and made this answer, if you speak of it to any bo­dy, I will deny it every word.

Thirdly, That when Mr Erbury for some of his blasphe­mies against the glorious Divinity and bloud of Jesus Christ was before the Committee for plundred Ministers, at West­minster, he began to make a solemn profession of his faith in Orthodox language, to the admiration of some there that had heard, and were ready to witnesse against him, the said blasphemies.

But the then Chair-man took him short off from his protestation, and commanded him silence, saying, we know your tricks well enough.

Atque adeo hic est unus ex praecipuis capitibus Theologiae ipsorum, saidAdver. lib. cap. 5. pag. 5 [...]3. Calvin of the Libertines, this is one of the master pieces of their divinity, that they have the art of dissembling, and transforming themselves into any shape, quo facilius hominibus imponant, and again,Idem, ibid. cap. 8. p. 519. Hinc fit ut si ho­die Quintinus &c. If Quintinus were here to day, a pri­soner for his blasphemy, either before Christians or Papists, it would not trouble him at all, for he is certain of his free­dome, because he could assent to either of them, and yet for all that never deny his faith and doctrine, neque tamen pro­pterea doctrinam suam abnegaret.

Obj. But what is all this to the Dr, either his principles or practise?

Ans. We conceive that to the ingenuous reader the same­nesse of doctrine with Blasphemers, is a sufficient argument for the samenesse of principles and practises with them also; the Devil being the same, sc. the father of all sort of lies from the beginning, to this day.Irenaeus ad. Haer. lib. 2. c. 34. We know the saltnesse of the sea by the taste of one drop, we need not drink up the whole. But more distinctly, and first, as to these destructive prin­ciples.

1. This hath been the drift of the Drs discourse often­times at Mr Blagraves, to affirm, that a man may say or un­say unto the world.

2. The Dr hath said, he was called of God, and if he [Page 133] did over-reach, it should not be laid to his charge, for he was called of God.

3. The Dr hath said, that we may do any thing with the world, or we can do well enough with the men of the world.

These testimonies are the more considerable, because of the advantages these persons had that tell them, whereby through providence they came to know, and through con­science (as we hope) do reveal these wretched tenets of darknesse.

Now, as to his practise, we entreat the reader to observe,

1. That his answer given in to the articles faithfully and incorruptly printed, and published in this relation are most of them devised forgeries, and studied untruths.

But secondly, This very man made a solemn protestation, and profession of his faith, when he was in his first troubles, and since that time, he hath vented many of these very hor­rid things proved against him in this relation, against our Lord Jesus, we say even since that time some years.

Now seeing he hath so manifestly violated his first pro­testation, and we see it proves false, we leave it to the consei­entious to consider whether this printed protestation may passe for true, or no, only tell himLuth. tom. 4. p, 180. Luthers thoughts, Fa­natici norunt verbis, gestibus, scriptis simulare, dissimulare omnia.

But yet a little further, put the case his protestation be true, what is that to the Commissioners? are they directed to proceed according to the protestation of the accused, or according to the allegations and depositions of the witnesses? Obj. Two sober men who were at the first sitting of the Com­missioners believed him, for they never appeared afterwards.

Ans. True, but those many left behind were sober, and sound too, and that both in point of science and conscience. Again, who those two were, the Dr names not, neither will we, but desiring to study and practise that text 1 Gal. 10. (we would not be ambitious of any mans praise, nor sollici­tous for any mans censure.) We wish that those gentlemen, and all Commissioners to whom these presents shall come, [Page 134] sadly to consider, that text which God did shoot as an ar­row into the heart of poor Spira, the head whereof did stick to his dying day, viz. Luke 9.26. In hunc textum defixis oculis semper intue [...]i convenit, non est quod callida dissimulatione hic sibi quis­quam placeat pietatem se fo­vere in corde fingens, qu [...]m externis testifi­cationibus prorsus evertit. Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Sonne of man be asha­med when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Fathers, and of the holy angels.

Obj. This man hath some followers, and like enough to have more, sure they believe him.

Ans. Heresy and lust quickly find entertainment with our naturall hearts, which must be wrought upon supernatu­rally, before truth, which is supernaturall and they, can meet together in love. So some did follow Quintinus, and other Fanaticks, and Calvin gives these two reasons in his dayes, which we evidently discern to be the same in ours, viz. Sa­tanicall pride, and beastly filthinesse.

Calv. Ep. 1. pag. 44.1. Nonnulli stultae curiositati adeo sunt addicti, some so much addicted to foolish curiosity, applied their minds to su­perfluous questions, who not content with the simplicity of the scriptures, did volitare velut in aere, in frivolous specula­tions, that they might vaunt themselves of high things, se sublimiores esse, & sublimiora persequi, that they were more high then others, and did follow more sublime strains.

The second this, Some that began to be seasoned with gospel purity, were weary of it, and did relinquish it, to lead a lustfull filthy life, ut effroenem sibi sumerent licentiam, & vitam ducerent flagitiosam, and so it is now, that they might take an unbridled licence to themselves, and lead (at least in secret) a flagitious filthy life.

Before we conclude, we would fain have the Countrey reader understand this one thing, that the Swincfieldians, Henry Nicholas, the Familists in New England, and the new Quakers do hold that the scriptures are carnall, the Bible fleshly, element [...]sh the word of God is to be rejected as a dead killing letter. Some scores of places might be cited out of their writings in these words, and to this purpose: from hence this follows, that a man is not bound to the outward command, no man is bound to suffer for religion, a man [Page 135] may bow to an idol, go to Masse, any thing, so they reason and conclude.

And by the same reason, a man may say, and unsay, swear, and forswear, protest, and never mean, lie, kill, steal, commit adultery, if he have an impulse, or if it be his light; let the countreyman hear what Mrs Hutchinson said in open Court, that we are not bound to the law, and it is no trans­gression against the law to commit sin; and let him consider what an Enthufiast did, the History is this,

Thomas Schucker, a disciple of Rinckius the grand Anae­baptist, in the midst of a great throng, pretending a rapture and revelation from heaven, commanded his brother Leo­nard Schucker to kneel down, being demanded by his fa­ther and mother, and many others, what he meant, answer­ed, he would do nothing but what was revealed to him from heaven, all the people being attent, the prophet with aThis was at Sengall, a Town in Hel­vetia, in the year 1527. Spanhemius. drawn sword, cuts off his brothers head at a blow; being apprehended by the Magistrate, and condemned to die, he did nothing relent, but professed upon the scaffold, that this was the will of God, and it was revealed to him from heaven.

Obj. But what is this to Dr Pordage, he hath visions, and doth converse with God.

Ans. This Dr did write a letter to a person of honour and piety, complaining against Everard, that he was a witch, a sorcerer, and the most dangerous man in England, intreating his assistance to apprehend him, and within five dayes after to two persons of note, denied every word, saying he was no such man, denied it earnestly, and often, nay said that Everard (of whom you have heard something in these papers, pag. 56.) was an honest, godly man, after many de­nialls, being told by them, that they admired at him, for they lately saw the clean contrary under his own hand in a letter to Col. Evelyn, Governour of Wallingford, This Dr was surprised and startled at it, being not able to deny it, but said, he was now of another mind, Col. Evelyn meeting the Dr, told him what a lewd practise this was, to affirm and deny at pleasure, not to be endured amongst men, as men, [Page 148] for by this means he might practise any wickednesse. He answered, that he was in a distemper when he wrote, that he was of one mind then, and another now, and that no man ought to persecute another for his Witchcraft and sorcery must have li­berty of con­science. conscience, thus adding one lie to another.

Observe, whither will men run when once they come to fall off from the Deity and bloud of Jesus Christ, whither will they go? deceive, affirm, deny, &c.

Of what high concernment is it to us for the present, and for eternity, to use all spirituall means, to get and increase in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, that knowledge with feeling, Phil. 1.9. that savour of the knowledge of the gospel, that knowing of the truth as it is in Jesus, that spirit of wisdome and revelation, to open the eyes of our understanding, that we may know the unsearchable riches of Christ, to know with all our hearts; this knowledge being the spring and source of all evangelicall, true, and lasting holinesse; espe­cially it concerns us in this houre of temptation that is come upon the land. Those called Quakers are both An­tiscripturists, saying the Bible was good for those times, but now they are out of date, and also Antichristians, let no man deceive himself by their pretended mortification, they do deny redemption from guilt and hell, by the bloud of the Lord Christ, without us, and so at one blow overthrow all religion, and holinesse.

If we had a voice as loud as the voice of the Archangel, (as one of theChrysost. upon Psal. 4. v. 2. O mortall men how long will ye love vanity? Ancients said upon another text) and all the nations for our audience, there could not, there cannot be a more preserving, seasonable, sanctifying text, then that of 1 Cor. 2.2. I desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified. It was the wish of godly Mr Hildersham upon that scripture, and we make it ours, would to God that all the People in England were of S. Pauls mind.

Animad. 10.

Upon this Doctors pretence of Holinesse, height of mortification, abstractednesse from the world, living on the tree in the midst of Paradise, &c.

Ans. This is not the way of Gods Saints: Abraham is dust and ashes, Jacob lesse than the least mercy. Job ab­hors hims [...]lfe, David cryes out, Lo [...]d who am I? Peter calls himselfe a sinfull man, and Paul, the least, lesse than the least of Sa [...]nts. Thus did not the Fathers or Martyrs boast of, but complaine against themselves. The richest Mines lye lowest, and the deepest rivers make the least noise. But he must praise himselfe, or else who will, that knowes God? and how how should he be like his pre­decessors, of ancient and later times? As

Simon Epiphan. contr. haer. pag. 18. Tom. [...]. lib. 1. Magus, a horrid blasphemer of Christ, a sink of filthiness and Lust, a man of very slender parts, and a shallow judgement, and so fell to deceive the people by Magicall tincturation (as the Doctor phrases it) he be­witched the people of Samaria.

This wretch gave out, that he was some great one, he called himself the power of God, and gave out, that he came downe from on high, and the people presently said so, even from the least to the greatest, they said, this man is the great power of God, Acts 8.10. yet Peter tells him, he was in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity ver. 23. he kept a Harlot whils he lived, and was brui ed to pieces when he dyed.

The false Apostles andIdem Haer. 31. pag. 56. Tom. 2. lib. 1. Gnosticks by what name soe­ver distinguished from their severall ring-leaders, how did they vaunt themselves as the knowing men of the world, and the spirituall ones, soaring in their notions? they had their mysticall stuffe, and unintelligible words, but very Caterpillars of Hell upon every green herbe, let theGal. 3. Phil. 3. 2 Pet. 2. 1 John 2. Jude the whole Epistle. Apostles, Paul, Peter, John and Jude, be con­sidered, speaking their unerring judgement of them, they [Page 150] called them Witches, Dogs, ungodly, wanton, bruit-beasts, presumptuous, ignorant, cursed Children, Antichrists, Lyars, filthy Dreamers, despisers of Government, for whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever.

This vaunting of heigths hath ever been the way of Heretiques, Epiphanius observed long since, that the Gnosticks of all sizes, and all the rest Dignitate &c. they boasted themselves with honourable titles, to convey their poysonous Doctrines, and Calvin of late, sub praetextu no­minis, &c. they labour to raise an esteem to themselves, and so to seduce the simple, under the pretence of sanctity.

Thus did Antonius Pocquius hear him speake for him­self as one raised of God in these Last dayes, thus, we are now taught of God, I understand nothing, for God is my understanding, thanks be to God by the spirit of reno­vation, I am raised from the Dead, I am quickned with Christ, called with Angels, I am past the Law, an heire of Immortality, our Soules are the secret dwellings of Divinity, the world is burnt up in me by fire, &c. You will say, what was this Pocquius? sure a holy man, yes, if you will take his own word, but heare what Mr.Furcifer, ne­bulo, impius, in­fal x, poreus, very often, Calv. Instr. ad. lib. cap. 23. his censure of Pocquius. Cal­vines censure was of this high-flown Meteor, this Sathan, transforming himselfe into an Angel of light.

Calvin terms him a rake-hell, a villain, ungodly, unlucky, a Swine, &c. yet Calvin was a man of singular patience and meeknesse, insomuch (as Epiphan. said of himselfe, that he did compell himself to write the blasphemy and fil­thiness of Heretiques for the good of future generations) so did he even force himselfe to rehearse the ungodly, and uncleane practises of the Libertines, to name their persons, and to set such deserved brands upon their names, for the glory of the Lord Jesus, and saving souls from being taken in the snare of the Devil.

David George of Delph, in the Netherlands, an Im­postor, a pattern both of detestable Heresies, and abomi­nable filthinesse, [...]parbemius in his naration of the Original of Sects, pag. 21. he gave himselfe out for the Christ of God, he called the Scriptures imperfect, nay, childish and carnall; he cozened his Disciples of their Money, [Page 151] he pretended persecution for the sake of Christ, (as this Doctor doth in his book) and although a man would think that no person could be so irreligious, or irrationall to entertain his horrid Doctrine, yet a very great mul­titude were seduced by this vile wretch, his meanes of seducing were these three: 1. A crafty way of instilling his opinion into others, creeping into mens mindes by little and little through subtile and wary insinuations, for he would not reveale his horrible mysteries, but to those who were totally his owne; 2. by counterfeiting a come­ly, majesticall kinde of countenance; but 3. and chief­ly by an outward shew of a holy life, and a mortified con­versation, and his frequent and seemingly M [...]re austere than any Gapu­cian, fasted three dayes to­gether. Ruther Sur. cap 4. fervent pouring out his prayers unto God; at last when his Vizard began to be torne from his face, by some of the Nether­lands, who knew him, who fled to Basil for succour, this wretch partly through the gnawings of a tormented con­science, and partly through fear of the civill Magistrate, pined away and died miserably, in the year, 1556.

Henry Nicholas, whose Blasphemies are justly ac­cursed to the pit of Hell, and whose secret whoredoms and filthinesse were at last detected, yet how did this man pretend austerity, holinesse, perfection? giving out in his gibberish, that he was anointed in the hoary age, of the ho­ly understanding, at the beginning he watched divers nights, and fasted, and prayed, and praised, and then came to visions, and thence to the Devill.

Faustus Socinus, that wretched Caitiffe, and incarnate fiend, who made it his businesse to confute that inve­terate figment, (as he calls it more then Satanically) of the Deity of Jesus Christ, yet this man also pretends much meekness & modesty, using towards those that did detest and oppose him, the sweet compellation of Brethren, and that in such a sweet way, (as many now adayes do language it toward blasphemers) he would commend Luther, Oecolampadius & others, and as it were by a side winde of their commendations, saile into the port of his own ample praises, heDr. Cheynect rise and groath of Socianisms. pretended to be a reformer [Page 152] of the reformers, nay, of the reformation it selfe, he look­ed on other men, and gave it out amongst his Proselites, as low men (as the Doctor calls the Ministers of a narrow stamp) he saith that God in this last age intends to make many new and glorious discoveries, and slily intimates, as though he were the man ordained of God to erect the tem­ple of Christ: many more might be named, but these are too many, and truly we should admire at our own folly, in being so copious upon this subject, but that we cannot chuse but stand amazed at the indiscretion of many pro­fessors, especially in such a day of plentifull light, who doe unawares plead for, and give countenance to horrid Blasphemers, because they walke under the notion and shew of holinesse, and pretended mortification, as if we had no Bibles to informe us, that Wolves, devouring wolves should come in Sheeps cloathing, and false Prophets should carry their matters with so much speciousnesse, that they should bid faire, nay and should doe it too (if it were possible) namely deceive the very elect, the De­vill is never so much a Devill as when he is white, he knowes full well that he can doe nothing to any purpose for his owne Kingdome, but in that colour, we desire to have a raised esteem of the least dram of true holiness, we say that Rubies and all that can be named or imagined, are not comparable to it; we say as Luther, that one single gratious worke, is more worth than the whole world, onely it is a trouble to our Soules, to see people cheated into, and hardned in damnable opinions by such shewes and pretences: we believe there can be no reall holinesse, without the sound and right knowledge of Jesus Christ; we conclude this for these dayes, with that ofAdversus Francisc. p. 570. Calvines in his dayes, they have mortification often in their mouths, but their mortification is this, viz. they have no sense of good or evill.

Animad. 11.

As to the Phrase and Language used by the Doctor, as for example:

The fiery Deity burning in the center of the Soule, the Godhead mingling it selfe with our flesh, the divine union, the divine transportation into the glory of the Majesty, p. 76. the essentiall essence of love, fixation in the love of the holy Ghost, divine tincturation, eyes fixed upon the being of love, the pure life of virginity, with many more. We de­sire the Reader to observe, that this hath been the guise of Blasphemers and Familists old and new.

Valentinus in hisMens in [...] ­b [...]lis magn [...] [...] [...]e in. b l [...]bilibus [...]nominatorum supersalestium. & Epiph l. 1. Tom. 2. Hae [...]. 3 [...]. Epistle begins high with swelling un­intelligible words, thus: The unabolishable mind to the in magnitude unabolishable, of unnameable supercelestiall se­crets I will make mention to you, with a fardell of nonsen­sicall stuffe of his males and females, and his triginta sae­cula. This Blasphemer was as errant too at Allegorizing as our Doctor; he proves his thirty Ages or Worlds most clearly by the Parable of the Labourers sent into the Vineyard, thus: Some were sent at the first houre, [...], These they cal­led wonderfull ineffable My­steri [...]s. some at the third, some about the sixt hour, others at the ninth, some at the eleventh houre. Now compute 1. 3 6. 9. 11. and these houres put together make thirty, and this a­mong his Sect was as cleare as the Sun to prove his tri­ginta saecula. Just as R. Higgs (one of the Doctors Dis­ciples and Witnesses) when one told him he could not beleeve Abrahams family in that Text to be his Family in him, viz. his will and affections, Oh said Higgs to him, It is cleare as the day, so that Pontius Pilate must con­demne Christ in us, and the Jews put him to death in us all very cleare. This Allegorizing and Quakerisme bids faire to drive the Scriptures out of the world, the very hopes whereof will make the damned Fiends keep Holy­day in Hell, when men thus abuse the Scripture, and be­witch the simple. It calls to our mind a saying of an An­cient, Whosoever speaks the Scriptures in another sense [Page 154] than he that wrote it, that manAustin de Doct. Chr. lib. 1. cap. 37. speaks a lie, though he speak the Scripture.

And againe, for this frothy language of Seducers: WhatIdem de Doct. Chr: lib. 4 c x. profit (saith he) is there in the sublimity of words, which are not understandable by the hearers? when there is no other cause of speaking, if they understand not what we speak, for whose sake we speak that they may understand; He that teacheth, should avoid all words that doe not teach.

Quintinistae peregrina, &c. theVelut cercula­tores & errones ex Bohemia. Cornicantur. Quintinists use a strange and uncouth language, with which they doe so chough it, that there is no more perspicuity in their words, than in the chanting of birds, and this they doe a malitiously to circumvent novices, [...]in adv. [...] cap. 7. [...]. 516. for they reveale not the mysteries of their abominations, which lay under the covert of their swollen language, but to their own, who are bound to them by Oath of Secresie, under these they lay hid like theeves in a thicket, their novices stand amazed at the sublimity of their words, which Peter and Jude compare to bubbles and froth. See more.

So H. Nicholas, thus, H. Rutherfords Survey Anti­christ, cap. 9. pag. 56. Nicholai, through the holy spirit of the love of Jesus raised by the highest God from the dead, anointed by the holy Ghost, in the old age of the holy understanding of Jesus Christ, illuminated with the spirit of heavenly truth, the true light of perfect be­ing godded with God, or the spirit of his love.

John Knew­stubb in his confutation of H. N.This form of writing is an evident note of a seducing spirit.

There are Quakers at Bodenham, who suffer extreme tortures of body, visible to the reporter, and many others, very often so extreme, that if God did not limit the Devill, their inwards would burst out, trembling and quaking in their agonies, as though their flesh would part from their bones, and ligatures, they call theseThe Quakers blazing star, by Edmund Skippe, teacher at Bodenham. pag. 22. agonies the fiery triall, and they say it is the power of the Holy Ghost burning up and destroying their corruptions, purifying them as gold tryed by the fire seven times.

They tell you how much joy and pleasure they have [Page 155] mixed with their torment that they could wish to be in it even for ever and ever.

This they call the drinking of the Cup, the undergoing the wrath and curse of God, as Christ did, most blasphe­mously, and say they must be brought to suffer as Christ did, untill there is nothing left them but the pure seed of God. Thus reckoning as far as I can determine (saith he) by their words, that upon this account they must beJust like the Doctor, not by the saplesse righteousnesse of another, but the fiery deity burning in the center of the soul: ju­stified before the Lord. This testimony is unquestionable, because of an eye-witnesse and eare-witnesse, Like to be seduced into this way by Sathan, but delivered out of it by the Lord Christ.

The Quakers at Reding had the same language of Christ suffering death from the eternall Love, and the holy Ghost burning up their lusts, and what were these but Blasphe­mers, saying,

  • 1. Your Ministers tell you, that Christ died for your sins, if so, then you may live in them.
  • 2. That the Scriptures were not the Word of God.
  • 3. That Solomon was a foole, for saying, To every thing there is a season, Eccles. 3.1, 2.

And this is their common principle, but the times wil not yet bear it.

ThusCal. ad Lib. cap. 9. pag. 519. Quintinus, Porcus ille unumquemque Apostolo­rum aliquo scommate notavit vacans, Paulum vas fractum, Joannem juvenem stolidum, Petrum abnegatorem Domi­ni, Matthaeum foeneratorem. We are loth to English it.

Animad. 13.

Upon the Doctors pretended great Temptations by se­verall applications of the Devills to him, in the shape and cloaths of Everard, and of a Gyant with a Sword in his hand, and a great tree lying by him, and a great red Dra­gon, with red Eyes, and Teeth, and a long Taile, pag. 73. of his books, for three weeks together.

Observe that temptations of Satan, are either ordinary or extraordinary.

[Page 156]1. Ordinary are injections to ordinary sins, as Sathan tempted David to number the people, and the Devill entred Judas to betray the Lord Christ, these are fre­quent and hardly discernable from our own lusts, and therefore in this case it is the truest, and safest course, to lay all the blame upon our own Soules: let no man by the way of extenuation say, that when he is tempted, he is tempted of the Devill, his striking fire could never harme us, were it not for the tinder, and lint of our own base hearts; thus did David, I have sinned (saith he) and I have done exceeding foolishly; Nay, thus did Judas, I have sinned in betraying innocent blood, and thus doe the Damned in Hell, let us doe it as David did, Graci­ously.

2. Extraordinary, and these are of three sorts,

1. Of Blasphemy, & such as is not to be named, against God, Christ, the holy Spirit; Saints thus tempted, would not in cool blood consent to such a thought for 1000. worlds, one of the best wayes in this case is, the more they are tempted to Blaspheme, the more to lift up God in his glory, and to magnifie him infinitely above all, so to beat the Devills weapon down upon his owne head. Though they finde a pronenesse in their nature, some­times to close with such temptations, yet this they gain by it, even to hate their owne base nature.

2. Of violence to lay violent hands upon our selves, or our relations, & this also is very terrible, and will make a man sweat for fear, and ask a Saint in this case, or let him ask his own heart, whether he would doe such a thing or no, and he would tell you no; he would rather choose to be torn in pieces with wilde Horses, or be buried alive than doe it, and yet it is so violent, that they will say sometimes they must doe it. The Lord keep such from the evill one.

3. Ʋnreasonable temptations, as that a man is not the same person he was, that he must shew himselfe as guilty of some notorious fact of which he never was guilty, with many more; there are many Saints goe to Heaven, that never [Page 157] feel them, and those that doe feel them, God makes them gainers by them exceedingly; some learne more in this School, than by any books in the world, the De­vill is but Gods Scullion: incomparably better it is, to live under these temptations, though for the present grievous, than to enjoy in a state of since, all the plea­sures and treasures of a 1000. worlds: the frownings of a Father are better than the kisses of an enemy: the bit­terest Physick, how much better is it than the sweetest poyson? by these sullyings and besmearments of dark temptations, God makes the vessels of mercy to shine the brighter. The Lord Christ out-shoots the De­vill in his owne bow; what he intends for the greatest mischief, Christ converts into a soveraigne good; Blessed be God.

But now this Doctor doth not tell us in the least what his temptations were, of what kinde they were, nay in his book he saith nothing (where he had a fit opportunity to declare himselfe) of temptations, but of a conflict between him and a great Dragon, and that he was as­sisted by the Angels, and pag. 76. he saith, the great conflict was between the dark world, and the Devils thereof, afflicting them with dreadfull shapes, poysonfull smells, and the light world, and the Angels thereof, relieving them with odoriferous perfumes, Angelical harmony, &c.

We deny not but God may suffer the Devill to appear to a Saint, but first it is very rare; secondly, such Saints have been Gods reall ones; thirdly, if so, yet not to fight and contend with Satan mouth to mouth; fourthly, for a short time, not twenty dayes together; fifthly, they have not an Angel standing by them in their own shape to support them: the battell of Saints is within, which through grace they fight with spirituall weapons under their Captain the Lord Christ, through whom they are more than conquerors: as he hath conquered for them by his death, so he doth conquer in them by his spirit.

The Doctor in his answer to these Articles, concerning apparitions, quoted with much confidence the Lord [Page 158] Lawrence as a friend to this way, he must quote him to this purpose, or to no purpose, and indeed therefore to no purpose, because to this purpose, that learned Gen­tleman saith nothing (that we can find) towards it, the hearers much admired, and his favourites much simpred at the naming of such an eminent person; if he be not of theSure this ho­nourable and Leraned Man is not for a vi­sible converse with Angels, nor the appari­tions of Devils in the shape of Giants, Dra­gons, Villains, in order to temptations. Doctors judgement, why did he abuse him to name him before the Commissioners and the Country? if he be, why did not he prove it in his Printed Book? in this indeed he was tempted to deceive.

The truth is, (the Articles and Depositions in the Re­lation considered) the result of all his pretended temp­tations will be this, that the Devils spitting fire at him, and other Devils under the notion of Angels supporting him, was to this purpose, That by this meanes he might more deceivingly and plausibly spit fire at Jesus Christ, which the Doctor hath done both before and since his Apparitions and Visions; and therefore his quoting for his defence, the temptations of the Lord Christ, Mat. 4. is wicked, and borders upon Blasphemy; and his quoting of Job, (Job 6.4.) is very impertinent and ignorant. Job saith in that Text, The Arrows of the Almighty stick in me, and the venome thereof drinketh up my spirits, by Ar­rows figuratively we are to understand afflictions inward and outward, which like Arrows were upon, and in that holy man, swift, sudden, sharp, secret, wounding affli­ctions, described, 1. By the Efficient, The Arrows of the Almighty: 2. By the Effect, They did heat and burnt up his spirits. What is this to the sight of a great Dra­gon, with a long taile, and great teeth?

Animad. 13. Ʋpon his high Appeale to God, p. 112.

Concerning his Appeale to God, we professe that when we considered the solemnnesse of an Appeale to the most high God, of what an important and serious nature [Page 159] an Appeale is in it self, and considered the principles and practices of this Doctor, we could hardly perswade our selves to reade it; and when we did, we were astonished to reade such swelling words, as to his owne holinesse, and his great persecution for righteousnesse; but this also in an evill cause is not a new thing, we will instance in one, and that is SirThe Narra­tive of King James, Printed by M. Sparks pag. 148. Jervas Yelvis, when he was arraigned in the businesse of Sir Thomas Overbury, he made solemne Ap­peales to God, and deep protestations of his Innocence; yet after the Sentence, he confessed his guilt in the Tower, and upon Tower-hill gave as large a testimony of sound repentance and reall hearty sorrow, as few Histories can shew the like, and lamented that sin of protesting and ap­pealing in particular. That which we would have the Reader to consider, is, what Judge Crooke said to him at the Bar, when he did call God to witnesse, and protest, Sir, (said the Judge) It is not your deep Protestations, nor your high Appeals to God, that can sway the Evidence gi­ven upon Oath unto the Jury.

We have not named this Gentleman to blemish him for his sin, but to shew what dangerous courses guilt, and feare through guilt will put men upon to blind the world, and save themselves: and we have mentioned his great repentance, not so much for his honour, as the Doctors imitation, that he (if God please) may doe like­wise and not to be asV [...]hementisi­mis & diris de­votionibus per salutem & dam­nationem animae omnia verissima esse d [...]jerabat. Camd. An. par. 4. pag. 35. Hacket, who boasted of his temp­tations from the Devill, and his revelations from God, with the highest oathes and protestation, that they were all most true, when indeed they were all starke false.

But let us a little debate the matter with this man.

Doctor, how durst you speak thus, Eternall Majesty thou knowest it never entred into the intention of my Soule to deny the God-head of Christ, the holy Trinity, &c. shall we believe that you preached and affirmed those Doctrines that never came into your soule? Doe you think that your appeal shall weigh down the evidence of five god­ly [Page 160] persons, who would not lye, much lesse would they sweare false for God, will they doe wickedly for the Gospell? did not you confesse that you did say, Christ is not Jehovah? could Mr. Blagrave deny it? were there not Articles of Blasphemy charged upon you, and pro­ved against you, to which you never offered an answer? as this, That the liberty of Saints is not a liberty from the curse of the Law, the guilt of Sinne, the wra [...]h of God by the death of another; meaning Christ, and explaining it so. And this, that the discoveries of the sinfulnesse of sin, the death of Christ, the free grace of God, are but fleshly and flashy discoveries: to these and others tending to be­stiality, and an African monstrousnesse, you never so much as offered an answer in your owne defence; are not you arrived to the perfection of the Familists, viz. That now you are free to doe that, which formerly, when you were in the dark, you looked upon as a sinne?

2. Doctor, why doe you alter the tense in the next words, thus Thou knowest, I am not guilty, not thus, I never was guilty of holding Christ to be imperfect, and his righteousnesse to be fruitlesse: the truth is, we doe not know what any familist is, he is such a Proteus, more changeable (as they say) than the Moone, for he will change every day as he sees fit, tantùm constans in levi­tate, onely constant in being unconstant.

3. Why doe you speake thus, Oh thou bright-eye, dost thou not see the innocent sufferings of my person for thy names sake? how often have I been numbred among trans­gressors for thy truth and life? Oh dreadfull! did Christs Martyrs ever suffer for such Articles charged and pro­ved against them, how unlike are you to them? they suffered for affirming Christ to be God, and his righte­ousnesse to be our Salvation, and you were sentenced for denying both: Aretius calls Val. Gent. and such as he, Satanae Martyres, the Devils Martyrs; the accursed Socinians, when they deny Christ to be God, they say they do it for the glory of God the Father; The Jesuites do glory much in the Martyrdome of some of their Society: [Page 161] it is a good Cause,It is not pana but causa, nor that onely, but conscientia that makes a Man a Martyr, his sufferings must not onely be for righteous­nesse, but also for righteous­nesse sake. and a gracious Conscience that makes a Martyr, you have neither of these.

4. Why doe you speak thus, they have ejected me out of my estate, which was thy gift; The Country thinks it was the gift of some other, we are no way satisfied that Bradfield Parsonage was Gods gift to you (as you pre­tend) and at your re-hearing (for which you say boldly some of the greatest eminency in the Councell were, p. 111.) we shall give in our reasons for it; for the pre­sent we will propose these Quaeres to you,

  • 1. For what did your Tenant by your own appointment give or pay to your use 85. l. to a friend?
  • 2. Were not Doctor Twisse's children sordidly defea­ted of that very money?
  • 3. Is it not confessed, That you gave a paire of Coach­horses to somebody that cost you 40 l?

The rowling of your brats conceived and born of your own lusts to the door of Providence, with other reasons, doth even force us to write almost with the same liberty, that men doe live in.

Why doe you say thus, Oh thou eye of Eternity, in pure obedience to thy will, I have addressed my selfe to the higher powers, that they might be left inexcusable; what language is here? did ever the best of the Prophets give such language as this in their own case, to the worst of Princes? see the mans fiercenesse against soules, and those of Magistrates, the Christian, the highest Magi­strates, by his addresses to them he did designe their in­excusablenesse before God! Athanasius would not say so much in his own particular wrong to Julian, as this Sa­thanasius saith to the Councell, when he is not wronged at all, unlesse it be by indulgence. No, no, it is not the suppressing, but the countenancing of, and conniving all seducing Blasphemers, that will render the Magi­strate inexcusable, which we unfeinedly desire the Lord to forbid in their hearts by his grace, as he hath forbid­den them by his command in the word.

6. Why doe you speak thus, O omniscient Majesty; thou [Page 162] knowest that we are neither the better, nor the worse for the justification, or condemnation of our fellow-creatures, but why so? when men fearing God are authorized to pro­ceed judically against persons for Blasphemies and Lewdnesse, proved by the oaths of honest knowing men, and are found guilty, is this to be never the worse? for Wickednesse to be punished, Truth vindicated, the hearts of Gods people rejoyced, the Soules of men to be delivered from the hands of destroyers, the simple to be undeceived, the mouth of wickednesse to be silenced, is all this never the better?

Doth not this strike at all civill government, and judicial proceedings? for cui bono are they? We are neither the better nor the worse, if it be replyed, we i. e. we in our selves are never the worse, we answer, what is there more said by the Doctor, than any Felon in Newgate may speak for himselfe? let any admirer of his, either he or she, shew the difference, if they can.

7. But Doctor, why doe you call the Magistrates from the highest to the low ones (your cause hath been before both) your fellow creatures? is not this the lan­guage of Babilon, amongst your Babel Quakers? where did you learn thus to speak? what Scripture, Author, or indeed any man did ever learne you this? the Qua­kers are not Men but Monsters.

8. Why did you not in your appeal cleare your selfe of that suspition of bastardy, which you yet lye under? what is the matter you doe not speak a syllable of it? did you forget it? or are you guilty & afraid of more discove­ries? you have said that you would spend 500. pound, but you would right your self from that libelling charg (as you terme it) why doe you not begin? you doe but vapour, nay, you doe worse by farre? you design to harden your fellowes, and cheat silly women; the Lord prevent and follow you and us, that we may cease to adde sinne to sinne, and one transgression to another:

Lastly, you conclude your appeale thus, My soul flyes to thee as a Dove to the Ark of rest, to be taken up into [Page 163] thine Eye; O how my Soule groans to be taken to a pre­sentiall enjoyment of thee, to feed continually on the tree of life,, &c. We warne you in love (though you may call it as you have done the fire of wrath) that aWe advise the Reader to that searching pi [...]c [...] of Perkins, v [...]z H [...]w farre a man may goe and be a re­probate. professor may goe to Hell in his duties, and doe you thinke to goe to Heaven in your Blasphemies? A man may loose his Soule in a good cause, and doe you thinke to save yours in a bad one? nay, the worst that ever was. Unlesse you look on that Jesus, whom with burning arrowes you have pierced, and mourne, which God grant, your high expressions may cheat your Proselites whilest you live, and deceive your owne Soule when you dye, which God forbid.

Animad. 14.

Toward the Vindication of the Commissioners, from the unmortified tongue of this pretendingly mortified Doctor.

1. He excepts against Mr. Dunch, and why, because Mr. Dunch looked upon him as worse than a Felon, and asked him how he durst to deny the God-head of Iesus Christ? this was before the Ordinance came forth for ejection.

Answ. A savory Speech from a Religious, Zealous Gentleman, our Soules desire that of his owne Order he had more company in his Gospell-Zeale which is ac­cording to knowledge; pray how did Saint Paul looke on the false Apostles, who did not arrive to that height of expresse Blasphemy as you have done in any pro­portion? did not he look upon them as witches? How did Peter look upon the Gnosticks, when he called them cursed children, going in the way of cursing Balaam? How did Polycarpus look upon Marcion, when he called him the first begotten of Sathan? or Constantne upon Arrius, when he named him the Image of the De­vill?

How doe you thinke the Senat of Bazil looked on David George, when they did execution upon his bones, and burned them to ashes? How did the Senat of Gene­va, look upon Servetus a Spaniard, a Blasphemer of the Son of God, when they burnt him? pouring out his Soul in the midst of his Blasphemies in the very fire, and this was done by the advise of Calvin, Oecolampadius, Me­lancthon, and the Churches of Helvetia.

How did the Senate of Berne look on Valentine Gent. they arraigned him, and sentenced him to Death for his Blasphemies against the Lord Jesus, and the Sentence was executed upon him? Aretius tells us he dissembled at the very place, nay, at the very point of Execution; and when they were ejecting him out of the world (as you did when you were ejected out of your living) he boast­ed, se pro gloriâ altissimi pati, that he suffered for the glory of the most high God: did not the Senate look upon him as bad as a Felon? to come neerer. How did Queen Elizabeth look upon Hacket think you, a Bla­sphemer of the Lord Christ, when he was hanged and quartered, and whereas commonly people at such a spectacle are compassionate, now by the hearing of the Blasphemies of this Seducer upon the Ladder, as soon as the Ladder was turned (asMultitudine postulante de­mittitur, exente­ratusque mem­bratim disseca­tur. Annal. par. 4. Cambden tells us) they cut him down, and pulled out his very heart.

When Gortyn and his crew had vented these three things especially, in New-England;

  • See the History of New-Eng­land, pag. 186. Anno 1643.
    1. That Christ was no otherwise borne, than in the heart of Believers, and that he and his were perso­nally Christ.
  • 2. That Ordinances were but Silver shrines, made for Diana.
  • 3. His disowning of, and contempt against the civill Magistrate.

How did many of these godly Magistrates look upon them there? how did Mr. Cotton publickly and privately presse the Magistrate, not to suppresse their Doctrines only, but to punish them as Malefactors; Nay, Mr. Wilson an [Page 165] humble, tender, meek-hearted man, did professe, that if the Magistrate should condemne them, he would be the first man should throw the first stone at them.

How did the Magistrates in England look onPrefat. Barth. Legat. Ob nefandos errores Hareses, & de­testandas Bla­sphemias, & ex­ecranda Dogma­ta: the Kings writ to the She­riffe of London: the Narrative of King James by M [...] Sparke, Printed, 1651. at the latter end. Barth: Legat of London for these Blasphemies amongst many others?

  • 1. That Christ was not God.
  • 2. That there were no Persons in the Trinity.
  • 3. That Christ was not God from everlasting, but began to be God at his Incarnation.
  • 4. That the Apostles did teach Christ to be Man onely.
  • 5. That Christ was not to be prayed unto.

Who for these Heresies was convented, condemned, and burnt in Smithfield, Anno 1611.

How did they look uponSuper refandis haeres. C [...] inthi, Vale tiniani. Arrii, M [...]cedo­nii Sim: Magi, Man. King James hi [...] W [...]it to the Sheriffe of the County, ubi supra. Edward Wightman of Bur­ton upon Trent, who was likewise arraigned, sentenced, and burnt at Litchfield for these blasphemous opinions:

  • 1. That Jesus Christ was not the true naturall Son of God.
  • 2. That Jesus Christ was a meere Creature.
  • 3. That the holy Ghost is not God.
  • 4. That he the said Edward Wightman is that person spoken of in Deut. 18.18. (I will raise them up a Prophet.)

How did the Parliament in 1643. look upon the de­nyers of the Divinity of our Lord Christ, Anti-Scripturists, &c. but as felons, and worse than felons?

How did the last Parliament in 1654. three months since, look upon Biddle and Tawney, reprochers of the Lord Jesus and the blessed Spirit, and Scriptures, but as Felons? Some doe think that they had looked upon them so, that in case of their pertinacy, no man should have looked upon them in these Nations for some yeares; had not the Session been concluded by the expiration of their time. They declared their judgment by the commitment [Page 166] of their bodies to the common Gaole, and by burning Biddles book by the hand of the Executioner, in London and Westminster.

Nay above all these, and which is the ground of these, How doth God look on Blasp [...]emers and Idolaters, read Deut. 13.7, 8, 9, 10. Here are two things observable.

1. It is evident, the Civill Sword was appointed as a remedy against Blasphemy: And

2. That it was the appointment of Jesus Christ, the Angel of Gods presence, whom the Jews tempted in the Wildernesse, 1 Cor. 10.9. and therefore it is not true that the Lord Christ never appointed the Civill Sword as a remedy in the case of Blasphemy, for he did expresly appoint it in the Old Testament, and he never did abro­gate it in the New. The reason of the Law (which is the life of Law) is of eternall equity, viz. Because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, ver. 9, 10. If Magistrates be the Ministers of God in the New Te­stament, (as they are called Rom. 13.4.) and Ministers to punish evill doers, then surely either this is no evill, viz. to seek to thrust away Gods people from him, or else the Ma­gistrate is to execute vengeance on such, as evill doers, non datur tertium. Godly Magistrates of old did take care for the soules of the people, and they did it, not as types of Christ, but as servants of Christ; for if they did it as types of Christ, then that care is utterly abolished, and this very Ordinance by which the Dr is ejected, would be as unlawfull as to offer Sacrifice, &c. which how irreli­giously absurd is it?

That saying of the King of Persia may deserve the thoughts of Christian Magistrates, Whatsoever is com­manded by the God of heaven for the house of God, let it be done diligently, for why should there be wrath against the King and his sons? Ezra 7.13.

We desire the Reader to observe,

1. That God from Heaven, and Magistrates of all forms, as Emperors, Kings, Queens, free States, Parli­aments, have looked upon Blasphemers, Seducers, as bad, [Page 167] nay, worse than Felons, and these assisted by the advice of godly able Ministers of the Gospell, and these too of all formes. Episcopacy, Presbytery, Independency.

Object. Then was then, and now is now.

Answ. We doe foresee this objection, because we doe converse with it, are well acquainted with it, the cryers up of a Toleration, The whore of Babylons back-doore, (as Master Cotton calls it) use to speak much to this purpose. But we say,

1. If the power of the Civill Magistrate in the things of God and Jesus Christ were a truth then, it is a truth now, (the righteousnesse of Gods Testimonies is everlasting) unlesse they can produce a repeale from God, and they may read till their eyes drop out of their head, before they will find that, as we beleeve.

2. For our parts we would not stand at the Barre of Christ with this guilt upon our hearts, sc. of exempting of the Civill Magistrate in the case aforesaid, That Reli­gion may look to it selfe if it will, if she will have a nursing Father and Defender, she may seek them: we would not thus be guilty for the gaine of the whole world.

3. Our thoughts are, that this objection will not be able to lift up its face, but would think it a friendly office to be buryed under some rock or mountaine at the day of Christs appearing with all his Saints.

But to proceed.

The next Commissioner taxed by the Doctor is Ma­ster Trapham, and that first, for the meannesse of his in­tellectuals. What a bold man is this to censure men, and his Superiours, knowing men, and conscientious? But of this before.

2. For his Passion, & why? because he said, he could as wil­lingly run his sword into the bowels of such a Blasphemer, as into the bowells of a common enemy, a shrewd crime in­deed: why Doctor, is not Blasphemy against God a grea­ter evill than Enmity amongst men? the words to any sober understanding can amount to no more than this, that Mr. Trapham is more heartily and zealously bent a­gainst [Page 168] the Enemies of Iesus Christ, than against his owne Enemies, and the exercises of Civill liberty, that he is more a Christian than an English Man: Mr. Trapham saith to you, as Mr. Dunch did, How durst you be so wicked as to deny the God-head o [...] Jesus Christ? The Devill durst not do it, nay did the clean contrary, Mark 5.7. Iesus the Son of the m [...]st high God torment me not. The Socinians, Familists, Quakers, doe out dare and out doe the De­vill.

The next is Mr. Cook of Wallingford, indeed his charge is high, but as false as falsity, the Doctor charges him, 1 for a supplanter of Mr. Wyer, 2. that this Mr. Wyer suplanted is a godly man.

1. For his supplanting, the naked truth is, that the businesse concerning a Minister for Wallingford, was made known to his Highnesse the Lord Protector, who was pleased to refer it to Mr. Caryl, Mr. Peters, Mr. Lockier, who according to his Highnesses order met, and upon hearing on both sides, after two houres de­bate did apprehend, and accordingly did order Master Pickney to be the fitter man to be Minister of Walling­ford, and Mr. Wyer after some convenient time to remove; A Copy of this Order we have seen, and this the Dr calls subtile supplanting, and that the Godly party look upon it so.

2. As for Mr Wyers godlinesse, we wish it so, we are sorry that we are forced to write what he hath delivered, viz. that the Death of Iesus Christ is not the procuring cause of Mans Salvation, a Doctrine toto coelo, inconsist­ent with reall godlinesse, or any one duty of it.

Object. The Man is known to be a blamelesse man.

Answ. Tell us not of that, a man may be without Crime, and without Christ, nay, Antichristianisme, it is common case now adayes, if his life, or any mans life whatever, in the guilt of such a Blasphemy, should out-dazle the holinesse of an Angell, yet we will not stick to say, that there can be no Salvation, he that will goe to Heaven out of Gods way, must enter in without Gods leave.

The next is, Mr. Nutkins, who is reproached by the Doctor for blinde Zeale and rigidnesse of Spirit; A most unjust and false accusation: the man is a man of eminency for knowledge, piercing into the Scripture, Soundnesse and Piety; a man fearing God above many, a long stan­der, and a great proficient in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and one of those (happy man he) that loves the truth for the truths sake, and our Lord Jesus in sincerity.

The last that were present, but not named, are Master Stroud, and Major Fincher, whom this Doctor calls more moderate than the rest, yet their hands were to the Sentence: we reply yea, and their hearts too, and we believe that they would go from one end of the County to the other upon their bare feet, (rather than it should not be done) to rid the Souls of people from such a Blasphemer, to whom they give no thanks at all for his seeming commen­dation.

The last Commissioner named by him, but not present, is Colonel Arth: Evelyn, a person of Conscience and Honour, whom the Doctor calls, A chief contriver of the designe against him, and that he set the wheel of others Zeal and false Passion in motion, and that he prejudiced him in London and the Country, telling all he met, that he was abominable and monstrous, &c.

Ans. As for designes we are not in the least consci­ous of any, unlesse it were a design to advance the good of Soules, and to vindicate the fundamentalls of the e­everlasting Gospell, from the tongues of Blasphemy and Lewdnesse: as for this Gentlemans driving on a designe, and setting others on worke, and telling all he met, that the Doctor was abominable, here are three untruths in a breath, not one sentence true, no not one. 'Tis confessed, that he hath said to some, that this Doctor was an un­worthy, false, ignorant man, before he was sentenced, in which he spake his knowledge, and he looks upon his ejection, as an act of justice in God, and an act of con­science for God, in the Commissioners, and a good mer­cy from God to the Countrey.

We cannot conceive what design this Gentleman is in a capacity to entertaine against this Doctor upon any selfe account (as this man insinuates) as though his eje­ction were not justice, but some Plot, we doe really as­sure our selves, that the Commissioners can truly rejoyce that their proceedings were not in fleshly wisdome, but in singlenesse and sincerity in this businesse, and so long as they have rejoycing in themselves, they doe not regard the censure of others, they know the praises of men can­not cure or cool the Conscience in point of guilt, nei­ther can the strife and reviling of tongues, in the least di­sturb the Conscience in point of uprightnesse, it mat­ters not what all the world saith, so God speak peace: onely they take notice, that

It was very unrighteous, and unconscionable & daring in this blown-up Dr, to speak evil, and that so publickly of his superiors: we doe not believe that any of those great Friends of his (with the frequent report of whom we poore Countrey people are amused) would ever incou­rage him to, or will support him in these unjust practises; we believe it is, and desire it may be farre from them; we believe he made more bold to vent his spleen upon the account of his friends, out of his owne presumption, than ever he will have thanks for his labour.

As for the Ministers used at pleasure, made and repre­sented as it pleased the Doctor, amongst his owne of all sizes and conditions, their answer is this.

They desire to be found in the blessed righteousnesse of the Lord Christ, (whom they desire to love above their lives) that in him they may appeare blamelesse before the Father, and they do sincerely, though weakly labour, to buckle upon their bosome, the breast-plate of righte­ousnesse, which will keep the faces and reproaches of men farre enough off from their hearts.

They crave leave to say (as their betters have said, when they resisted to blood) non patimur, sed videmur [Page 171] pati, We seem to suffer in the eyes of men, we doe not suffer in our owne Consciences.

They hope they are not guilty in the transaction of this businesse, to suffer as Malefactors in the account of Christ, and they know they are most unworthy to suffer as wit­nesses upon the account of Christ.

They remember what Luther said (when the Popes paper Bull roared against him) sure (said he) I am afraid because I am unworthy of such an honour, as to suffer for Christ, this roariag Pope meanes not me. What are they, that they should then be reviled, maligned for the sake of Jesus? Whether they have cast the Doctor with Dani­ell (as he meekly saith) into the Den, or with the three Children into the fire, or whether he hath not cast the glories of the Gospell, and the joyes of reall Saints, into Sathans Den, (quantum in se) and into the fire of the Pit, the day will reveale, that great day of Revela­tion.

These Ministers humbly tell their Fathers in Christ, and all their fellow-labourers, that they have been so inured to the noise of Nilus, that they scarce heare it now; they have been so accustomed to the reproaches of Anabaptisticall Arminians, Anti-sabbatarians, Anti-Christians, Anti-ordinanced men, &c. that (they hope they are not vain) they are become deafe to them: they are even almost Scandall-Proof.

To conclude, this Doctor calls the Commissioners Crucifiers, Plunderers of his holinesse, at the entrance of his book, and now grosly slanders some of them. Oh what would these men doe, if they had but the liberty of their hands, as they have of their tongues! he clamours as though he were Persecuted, when he is indeed the Persecutor; he doth not suffer but act Persecution. Let the Reader judge whether the Commissioners Persecute him, or he Persecutes the Commissioners; what would these men doe, if they had power? they sparkle rage and fury through their eyes and tongues, the Lord grant the Gospell may never feele the weight of their hands, [Page 169] the little finger of the Familist, and Quaking Anti­scripturist, would be heavier than the arme of Queen Mary, former persecutors would passe for mer­cifull men in comparison of these, Haeretici sanguinarii, and the more spirituall the Heresie, the more bloody: 'tis true, they have either been smiling, and fawning, and meek (as they call it) in the cradle, but it is as true they have ever prov'd foule and bloody in the saddle. Blasphe­my in hardness would be matchlesse in cruelty: It is good for us to draw nigh to God in this glorious, compleat, (though now vilified) righteousnesse of Jesus Christ, who hath, and doth, and will deliver us.

The last note upon this Doctors Ap­pendix, pag. 106. concerning his Appeale to the Higher Powers.

HE saith, many were against his appeale, and his Pe­titioning the higher Powers, and why? because it was a thing too conformable to the custome of the world, and too slavish for men that live to the li [...]e of Christ, out of the waies of Babylon. Observe, these many are some of his owne, as you may judge by the phrase, turbulent, and ignorant ones, as if Magistracy were a piece of Babylon, & not an ordinance of Jesus Christ. The truth is, men are mad because they cannot be so, mad at heart, because they cannot be mad in hand, enraged against the present po­wer in anothers hand, because they cannot be outragious with it in their own Government was looked on as tyran­nicall and fleshly among the Munsterians, but when they came to have it, they were so fleshly and tyrannicall, that they spared no flesh that came in their way.

He proceeds to give an account of the reason of his ap­plying himselfe by the way of appeal, to the person or per­sons; here are so many unworthy reflexions that we are very unwilling to follow him, we doe not desire in the least to provoke the supreme Magistrate against him, onely we crave leave to beseech his consideration, as to the temper of these men; verily a Man could hardly have spoken more contemptuously than this Doctor hath done, if he had been before the grand Signior at Con­stantinople, or the great Cham of Tartary: his reason is,

1. He thinks there should be rulers, and ruled, and that from the inward worlds which he hath seen, and there 1. from the Government of Hell; 2. from the Govern­ment of Angels, (which is more than ever the Dr will prove, though his inward sences hath conversed with them this 5. yeares) then 3. from the outward world, (as he calls it) as Moses, Joshuah, &c.

His inference is this, now, what now? why now if we are to owne, i. e. to Take notice of this. take notice of the rulers of Hell, how much more of the rulers of the world, though made accor­ding to the rules of the Spirit of this world? how ugly doth this expression look? yet for a salvo to save his skin, he comes in with an id est, that is (saith he) according to the wise Canons of rationall policy, what ailes this man? here is not a word of Christian Magistrates, are not our Ma­gistrates Christians? is not the Gospell more cleare and pure in England, than in most, nay any part of the Chri­stian world? doe they not take care for the good of precious Soules? the Lord increase their care, and pitty to them 1000 fold: 'tis sadly true we confesse, and may it be for a lamentation, that there are many, very many thick fogs of Familisme, Socinianisme, Anti-Scripturisme among us, and (were it convenient) we should say, that if the Magistrates doe not scatter them, by justice, Gods justice may suffer them to scatter the Magistrates.

He proceeds to distinguish how men came to power, [Page 174] to this purpose some, by immediate Divine designation, some by succession or Free election, some by ambition, but he makes no application of his distinction, he doth not tell us, of which of these the present powers are, the rea­son is, as we apprehend, not difficult to be rendered, 'tis facile enough, because, if he had applyed his distinction, he must either have boldly affronted the present Magi­stracy, which is not to be endured, or else highly di­spleased his owne Sect, which he cannot endure.

To the last member of his distinction, sc. these who as­sume power of necessity, policy, ambition, &c. he puts a boundlesse, & caetera, leaving himselfe scope enough to say what he pleases amongst his owne.

The Doctor names three wayes of coming to Magi­stracy, indeed this third is no way at all, unlesse it be of Boniface, Kniperdoling, or the Quakers.

Some wise men name a fourth, and that is Power, thus, Upon the alteration of Government, either in the Line, or in the Forme, (and who thinkes that either of these simply, in natura rei, is unalterable, doe we not read the contrary in all History? do we not find the contrary in some Countries?) in such a case, Power sets up Authority, which is, as we may say, the materiale, and this being confirmed by the fundamentall order of the Countrey, where such alteration is made (which is as it were the formale of it) becomes fully compleate, and entirely le­gall to all the exercises of Authority.

Which in briefe is no more but this, Power brings in Authority, and Authority is nothing else but established, and regulated Power. As for mens assuming power out of ambition, Pride (which is one of the Doctors brain­lesse heads) we cannot judge of that, For, Who knowes the minde, and ends, and designes of a Man, but the spi­rit of a man? Let them look to the sincerity of their hearts, and against the irregularity of these base ends, for Every Man shall beare his owne burden, whosoever he be; but things of this nature are above our compasse, and [Page 175] without our businesse, this being to submit, and not to dispute, therefore we proceed.

He tells us, that he bows to the powers, as Abraham did to the Heathen people, and as Paul gave the Ethnick Princes their titles, appealing for justice to Caesar, a Hea­then tyrant, and this may be done by him, (as Paul did it) without owning himself of, and in union with their corrupt societies. Further he saith, that as there was no necessity for the Jewes who lived in Ethnick Babylon, to partake of their sins, though they were civill to the power, so they that live in Christian Babylon, are not necessitated to par­take of their sins, though they give them titles, and appeals [...]t them.

We professe our selves at a stand to determine, whe­ther here be more ignorance, or sed [...]tion, here is so much of both; are our Magistrates the Sons of Heth? is he Abraham? are they Heathen Caesars? is he Paul? is England Babylon? may not Christians be Magistrates?

Object. Your note is partiall, he quotes, Romans 13.5, 6, 7.

Answ. The Quakers who would be glad to see all the Bibles light and flaming in the fire, doe yet quote them for their owne ends, to deceive; and the people say in their simplicity, they quote the Scriptures, and so are be­witched by degrees, when as these men hate the Scri­ptures, and Blaspheme them, they meane no such thing; so here even in this also, this Doctor hath said, notwith­standing this text now printed by him:

1. That he cared no more for the higher powers, or any man in England, then he valued the dust under his feet; and this in the Pulpit, and as we conceive, nay are cer­taine, since he hath been in the third Heaven as he pre­tends.

2. He hath said, that there should be no Parliament, nor Magistrate, nor Governor in England ere long, and be­ing demanded how men should or could live without Magistrates and Law, he answered, the Saints should [Page 176] take the Estates of the wicked to themselves, and the wick­ed should be their slaves, and that there should be a kinde of Majesty, sparkling out from the Saints that should o­ver-awe the wicked; and Mrs. Pordage said to a professor, what you have shall be ours, and what we have shall be yours; this was spoken since his inward sences have con­versed with the Angels, and the eternal world, and it was spoken confidently, as if he had been a Prophet, but the time prefixed, which was about two yeares is expired, and he a false Prophet.

Had this Doctor vented this stuffe in his Pulpit, or blurted out this riffe raffe before the Commissio­ners, or any others else, and not published it in Print to the view of all, we should have buried it in silence, and let it have rot, we should have been more respectfull to the Government, and the honour of the Nation, then to have published his saucy and seditious language.

He saith that his Highnesse, the Councell and the Nati­on, may thanke the Commissioners, for hastning the poureing the vials of Gods wrath upon the Land for their persecution.

Answ. Thus the shakers pronounce the curse against those that oppose them in their detestable opinions; what means this man to speak thus? when as the clean contra­ry is true, it is the Magistrates doing justice upon Sedu­cers, especially in fundamentals, that is a Scripture way to prevent the powring forth of wrath upon the land, and to preserve the people from the Plague, that all Israel may hear and feare, and doe no more so.

The higher powers have no cause to thanke him for his uncivill kindle-cole, appendixe, made meerly to sa­tisfie some, that they may appeale to the Powers, though they and he agree in the maine, viz. That the Powers not­withstanding such an appeale are Babilonish.

For our parts we desire to lead a quiet and peaceable life, where, as here in the land of our Nativity hitherto, we may do so in all godlinesse and honesty.

2. We blesse God, and praise him for the li­berty [Page 177] of the Gospel, and we confesse we pray against a wretched universall Toleration.

A toleration of Idolatry infected the ten Tribes; that Infection proceeded to break forth to a Botch, they be­came Idolaters; that Idolatry was the chief Sinne from whence came their Captivity, which Captivity was into a strange Land, where they continue to this time.

God did forbid them to suffer any strange Gods, nay not to ask after their names, nor to enquire how the Nations did worship them: but they hearkned not, They mingled themselves with the heathen, Psal. 106, 35, 36. And what then? they learned their works; What works? they worshipped their Idols; And what followes? which became also their ruine.

They had many warnings and Sermons from God by the Prophet; but perhaps they thought they were re­solved, and wise enough, than ever to say to a stone, thou art my Father, or to worship the hoast of Heaven (as many a man in England would have even spit in a mans face, if he should have been told 12. years since, that he would deny Sabbath, nay Scripture, nay Christ the Lord, with an Am I Dog, which yet is wofully come to pass) by this meanes they were ensnared, and did as the Hea­then, and were well nigh 2 [...]00. yeares since carried away by a Heathen Prince into a Heathen Countrey, no man knowing where they are to this day.

3. We doe not envy at mens exercising in a ministeri­all way, so they be qualified according to the Scripture, although they never smell the smoke of the Universi­ty, w uld all the Lords people were Prophets Yet we say, 1. we are hearty we [...]l-wishers to those places, and the learning there attainable which is exceedingly advanta­gious, and we confesse, that the spight of the Devill, the subtilty of the Jesuits, the barbarisme o [...] New lights, as they are called, the hard speeches of Loose ones, makes us prize them both the more; sure it must be some great good that is condemned by these: 2. As for Ordination, [Page 178] we believe it was instituted by Jesus Christ, and never hitherto by him made null, and therefore necessary where it may be had.

We cannot but sadly look upon, and lament over the wofull effects of the Separation; How hath God born witnesse against it in our sight, as heretofore in Germa­ny? Into what Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies, Loose­nesse, Leudnesse, neglect of Duties, scorning of them, have thousands run? A man may run and read it, we call these, and might name many particulars under these, effects of the Separation, we think they are more than Consequences.

Obj. What need this? to what purpose do you menti­on it?

Answ. The unworthy speeches of this Dr. and such like have even forced this confession from us, and yet not in regard of our selves, that we may stand right in the eyes of men (we would live in the Testimony of our own hearts) but in regard of the word of the Gospel, that the lewd reports of men, who make it their businesse to speak evil, may not prejudice (as it doth too much every where by the policy of Sathan) men from hearing, and through Grace entertaining the truth, whereby they may be sanctified and saved. Now God, our Father, who hath freely loved us, and given us everlasting con­solation, through Grace, and our blessed Lord Jesus who hath loved us, and washed us from our Sins in his own Blood; and the holy Spirit, who doth reveale that Grace in the Scripture, and seal it upon our hearts, vouchsafe, that Truth, and Righteousnesse, and Peace may meet and dwell in the midst of us, and our children after us, and grant that those, who hold the Head, and walk in the Light, may have fellowship one with ano­ther, that the glory of the Lord may dwell in the Land in our daies, and the Generations that shall come after us, till time shall be no more.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.